|
|
eLetters: Different professions, different ethical standards (a response to "Misdirected aspersions")
In response to: A call for the regulation of prescription data mining
Douglas Ford
Email: fordbd@clinlabs.path.queensu.ca
Affiliation: Department of Pathology, Queen's University
Posted on: December 6, 2000
We agree with Stuart MacLeod's assertion in "Misdirected aspersions" that IMS Canada's compiled data has value for academics and policy makers. It was stated thus in our commentary "A call for the regulation of prescription data mining" and reiterated in "The current reality of the need for regulation of prescription data mining: a response to IMS Canada." We do not wish to argue semantics with Dr. MacLeod; however, we would like to say what he has deemed pejorative and aspersions were for the most part neutral descriptions. Where we appear to substantively differ is with regard to the need for physician-linked prescription data to be collected in accordance with CMA principles for the sale and use of physician prescription data. These principles essentially boil down to informed consent. Implicit in Dr. MacLeod's arguments as well as those of IMS Canada against the seeking of informed consent from physicians, is that taking adequate steps to inform Canadian physicians about IMS Canada's prescription data mining activities and seeking physician consent would negatively impact prescription drug databases and related medical research. We do not think this would be the case, but even if many physicians chose to opt out, similar arguments could be used against the need for informed consent in all medical research. While IMS Canada compiles physician-linked prescription data in accordance with self-generated ethical standards, university research ethics boards would not likely approve a study using IMS Canada methodology. Academic physicians using IMS Canada data might consider the ethical standards by which the data was compiled and encourage IMS Canada to collect physician-linked prescription data under conditions of informed consent. This discussion may all be moot, because as of January 1, 2001, Bill C-6 the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act comes into force and informed consent is a central tenet of this legislation. From our lay reading of this act, it appears IMS Canada will have to fully inform physicians of their prescription data mining practices and seek at least presumed consent to comply.
Dick E. Zoutman,
B. Douglas Ford,
Assil R. Bassili
Copyright 2000 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors |
Canadian
Medical Association Journal