The Case of Pfizer

"Pfizer" is sometimes a bad word in the medical industry. I've even heard some people at work say that when they interact with anything Pfizer, they immediately run. However, this is an interesting dichotomy we are dealing with, because while many distrust this huge pharmaceutical company (pharma), it is simultaneously the world's largest pharma company. I decided this week to look at a recent and ongoing case involving Pfizer, and analyze it from a bioethicist's point of view.

Pfizer is currently involved in a multimillion dollar lawsuit involving "off-label" claims they had trained their sales staff to make about their product Rapamune. Once again, we have another case of a pharma company unable to find a balance between being ethical and selling their product in any way that they can. In this particular case, Pfizer is being accused of targeting patients who need a heart, lung, liver, or pancreas transplant and trying to get doctors to prescribe Rapamune. Rapamune is a drug that reduces immune response in patients so that they don't reject a new transplant. However, the only FDA-approved transplants that this drug has been approved for on-label is kidney transplants. Many sources in this case claim Pfizer reps approached them encouraging the use of their drug in off-label cases such as heart, lung, and liver transplants. These uses have no data to support their efficacy, so should not be encouraged in the least. This is just one of many cases of pharma companies (or medical device companies) stretching the limits of what claims they can make just for a pretty penny.

This should really be alarming to most people. It begs the question, what is most important to these companies? Communicating the safe and correct use of a drug or device, or making a large profit off of the sickness and health problems of others? Having worked in the industry, I'd like to think that generally, most professionals and businesses want to be honest and ethical. They're not out there trying to harm people. However, the greed of big business and promotion may motivate some to participate in minor ethical hiccups.

Because of these occasional hiccups in moral and ethical decision-making, it is ever-important to maintain regulatory bodies and bioethical communities to serve as watchdogs of what is going on. Their role is not to surpress innovation, but to enhance a companies ability to design and innovate safe and effective drugs or devices. Once again, more time and money needs to be invested in this up-and-coming industry of bioethics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/pfizer-rapamune-lawsuit-p_n_589251.html