Introduction

The conflict of interest between pharmaceutical sales and the ethical practice of medicine has long existed. Since the 1950s, educators, administrators, researchers, and clinicians have fought for corrective action (Podolsky & Greene, 2008). Pharmaceutical companies have spent approximately $21 billion dollars on marketing while 90% of this budget has gone toward directly influencing physician practice (Brennan et al., 2006). Physicians and other health care practitioners have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their patients. Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade (2006) define this duty as, "[owing] undivided loyalty to clients and [working] for their benefit" (p. 163). Furthermore, according to these authors, it is especially important that fiduciaries avoid financial conflicts of interest that "prejudice their clients' interest" (p. 163).

Now that pharmaceutical companies have lost much of their ability to financially persuade practitioners with large monetary gifts, the focus on ethics behind their influence has shifted more toward the issue of "detailing" (Huddle, 2008). "Detailing" is loosely defined as the process of face to face contact between a medical provider and drug company representative ("drug rep") for the purposes of educating the medical provider on all of the details of a particular drug, service, or device. Many argue that a conflict of interest still exists for patients, despite a cap on monetary incentives (Brennan et al., 2006; Higgins, 2007; Spurling & Mansfield, 2007). They contend that any gift, large or small, may still influence the decision making process of a medical provider, and thus conflict with the better interest of the patient. They often site social science research which has demonstrated the powerful impulse to reciprocate for even small gifts (Brennan et al., 2006). Indeed, from their standpoint, pens and lunches strongly count toward that influence. For those who seem to believe that little influence can be generated from such small gifts, the persuasion is thought to stem from the dissemination of biased information (Huddle, 2008). These conflicting viewpoints have stirred an ongoing battle between the unbiased better interest of patient care and the financial self-interest of multibillion dollar pharmaceutical companies. The integrity of evidence-based medicine and ultimately the safety and welfare of patients hang in the balance as the battle wages on.

Through the litmus of Jonsen et al. four topic method, the far reaching implications of this subject will be explored.