↓ Skip to main content

Drug Firms, the Codification of Diagnostic Categories, and Bias in Clinical Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
5 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Drug Firms, the Codification of Diagnostic Categories, and Bias in Clinical Guidelines
Published in
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/jlme.12074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Cosgrove, Emily E. Wheeler

Abstract

The possibility that industry is exerting an undue influence on the culture of medicine has profound implications for the profession's public health mission. Policy analysts, investigative journalists, researchers, and clinicians have questioned whether academic-industry relationships have had a corrupting effect on evidence-based medicine. Psychiatry has been at the heart of this epistemic and ethical crisis in medicine. This article examines how commercial entities, such as pharmaceutical companies, influence psychiatric taxonomy and treatment guidelines. Using the conceptual framework of institutional corruption, we show that organized psychiatry's dependence on drug firms has led to a distortion of science. We describe the current dependency corruption and argue that transparency alone is not a solution. We conclude by taking the position that the corruption of the evidence base in diagnostic and practice guidelines has compromised the informed consent process, and we suggest strategies to address this problem.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Psychology 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 13 24%