Sponsorship of medical conferences by the pharmaceutical industry has led to many ethical issues, especially in resource-poor developing countries. The core issue in these instances is to reduce or avoid conflicts of interests. COI is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by secondary interests. Disruption of social trust should also be considered. This deontological approach should be complemented by a consequentialist approach. Towards this, the concept (...) ofdistal interests is introduced. DI lies beyond the immediately visible COIs and the consequences of immediate decisions. They are ‘distal’ in time or place: ‘DI in time’ means consequence of the decision in future scenarios, while ‘DI in space’ means those that impinge on other institutions or bodies. In judging the consequences, it is also necessary to consider the reality of the existing relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and organisers of conferences. In more developed countries, these relationships are governed by stricter regulations, adherence to codes of conduct by both parties and stronger institutional oversights. In contrast, developing countries such as Sri Lanka the regulatory environment is lax and the demarcation of interests between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession is considerably blurred. Therefore, establishing clear rules of engagement between the stakeholders should be considered as an attempt to clear the muddy waters. The paper proposes a set of guidelines to capture these approaches. (shrink)

As the debate over how to manage or discourage physicians’ financial conflicts of interest with the drug and medical device industries has become more heated, critics have questioned or dismissed the concept of “conflict of interest” itself. A satisfactory definition relates conflict of interest to concerns about maintaining social trust and distinguishes between breaches of ethical duty and temptations to breach duty. Numerous objections to such a definition have been offered, none of which prevails on further analysis. Those concerned about (...) conflicts of interest have contributed to misunderstandings, however, by failing to demonstrate when social arrangements leading to temptations to breach duties are in themselves morally blameworthy. Clarifying “conflict of interest” is important if we are eventually going to develop productive modes of engagement between medicine and for-profit industry that avoid the serious ethical pitfalls now in evidence. (shrink)