Drug Marketing and Psychiatry - Essay Example

Drug Marketing and Psychiatry Grade (April 2, Drug Marketing and Psychiatry Introduction The relationship existing between psychiatry as a discipline and the pharmaceutical industry has become controversial in the modern day. Psychiatry as a field involved with the treatment of mental disorders has been found to persistently collude with the pharmaceutical industry, in endorsing and subsequently prescribing the drugs produced by the big pharmaceutical companies for mental health problems treatment (Moynihan, Heath & Henry, 2002). The overall effect of this collusion is that the society is suffering the blunt of the psychiatry treatment, owing to the fact that the mental health patients are prescribed some pharmaceutical drugs that may not necessarily help to address their health problems. This is in turn jeopardizing overall state of health of the society, through the creation of persistent mental illnesses that are not cured. In addition to the collusion to endorse and subsequently prescribe the drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry for mental health conditions treatment, the psychiatry practitioners are also colluding with the industry in the invention of other non-existent mental health conditions (Angell, 2004). After the invention of the new conditions, the pharmaceutical industry gets down to generating new medications which are prescribed to patients diagnosed with such invented conditions. This earns the pharmaceutical industry high profitability, while the psychiatry practitioners are in turn earning handsomely in research, endorsement and prescription fees (Caroll, 2009). This revelation is very disturbing for a society that is persistently trying to fight the ever increasing menace of mental health conditions and illnesses, which have afflicted the modern society more than any other health problem. In this respect, the need for establishing solution that can bring an end to this problem is dire. Problem description The collusion between the psychiatry practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry has had numerous negative effects on the society. Due to the domination of the psychiatry field by use of drug for treatment of mental health problems, there is little or no development in therapy psychiatry, which could create alternative methods of addressing mental health problems (Bettelheim, Cooper, Jost, Koch & Masci, 1999). Thus, the psychiatric treatment of most of the mental health problems has become more centered on drug treatment, as opposed to other interventions such as therapy treatments. In recent years, it has been noticed that there is little development related to social or recreational therapies in the field of psychiatry, while occupational therapy and psychology services are highly limited in psychiatric treatment (Cosgrove & Bursztajn, 2008). Family therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy are some of the mental health treatment methods that have been found to be highly effective in the treatment of psychosis. However, there is no longer meaningful development seeking to promote the development of more strategies that are targeted towards enhancing the effectiveness of therapy-based treatments. The further problem associated with the collusion of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry is the expansion of the mental disorders (Angell, 2004). For example, the increased production of antidepressant drugs by the pharmaceutical industry has served to promote more depression in the society. This is owing to the fact that the more people tend to rely on drugs as opposed to the therapeutic or other emotional and psychological health approaches, the more they find a shortcut to approaching the problem. The vigorous marketing of the antidepressants by the pharmaceutical industry simply taught the society that it is alright and normal to be depressed, for as long as an individual is able to access the antidepressants and subsequently reduce the depression levels (Smith, 2012). This way, depression has become a normal characteristic of the modern society, which is in fact no longer treated as mental health problem, but rather as more socially acceptable tendency that can be easily addressed through self-medication. A further problem that has been created by the collision between psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry is the creation and dissemination of social phobia (Cosgrove, Krimsky, Vijayaraghavan & Schneider, 2006). The collision between psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry has seen the two parties promote the tendency to develop and invent new mental health conditions that might not be necessarily existing in the society. If they do not work on developing new and non-existent mental health conditions, the collision has developed the tendency to over-pronounce the mental health conditions that are less harmful to the mental health situation of individuals, into a health epidemic (Smith, 2012). The effect is to cause the society unnecessary scare regarding the widespread mental health problems, while in the real sense such health problems might be non-existent. The pharmaceutical industry is therefore influencing the psychiatry field into creating non-existent mental health conditions, as opposed to reinforcing the actual existence of a disease, and developing factual methods of treating it (Cosgrove & Bursztajn, 2008). Solution presentation The solution to the problem of the collusion between the pharmaceutical industries and psychiatry can be found into major ways. First, the sponsorship of the pharmaceutical industry in medical educational research and events should be terminated. Secondly, the government should form a specific body that is targeted at regulating the conduct of both the pharmaceutical industry and the medical research and educational institutions. This should occur through regulating the drugs and medications produced by the industry, following a strict procedure of investigating the purpose for which each drug is developed, and the nature of the illnesses it is targeted to address (Smith, 2012). The two solutions have been presented as appropriate for addressing the existing problem of the collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and the psychiatry practitioners, by sealing the loopholes through which the collusion is established. The first solution related to the termination of the sponsorship of medical education research and event, is a solution that is targeted at preventing the pharmaceutical industry from using financial influence to manipulate the nature of research that is done by medical learning institutions in the area of psychiatry and mental health (Moynihan, Heath & Henry, 200). Once the funding and sponsorship has been terminated, the practice of unnecessary mental health drug production can be curbed. This is because; the pharmaceutical industry will no longer have an opportunity to apply the medical learning institutions as the breeding ground for favorable recommendation and endorsements of their manufactured drugs, which are meant to treat mental disorders. The second solution requires that the government establishes a specialized body that will strictly control the pharmaceutical industry. This is to be achieved through the established body investigating and subsequently licensing any of the medication that is produced by the industry, targeted at the treatment of different mental health conditions (Caroll, 2009). The involvement of the government in the control of the industry and its operations will go a long way in ensuring that the pharmaceutical industry will undertake real and meaningful research towards the development of medication that is useful in treating actual mental health conditions. Further, through the control of the government body, the collusion activities of the pharmaceutical industry and the psychiatry practitioners can be investigated and the necessary legal action taken against the parties found to engage in such practices. Thus, the involvement of the government body in the control of the pharmaceutical industry on itself is not enough, since the medical research and education institutions also require to be regulated. This is especially in the manner in which the institutions commercialize their research once completed, or even collude with various parties in the pharmaceutical industry in commercializing their research (Cosgrove, Krimsky, Vijayaraghavan & Schneider, 2006). Therefore, their regulation would also mean that they undertake meaningful research which is then certified by the specialized government body. The licensing for the commercialization of the research is then given by the government established specialized body, based on the usefulness of the research in developing drugs that treat real mental health problems (Angell, 2004). This way, the government control can become effective both in regulating the activities of the pharmaceutical industry, and also ensuring meaningful research for the medical research and educational institutions. Rebuttal The presentation of the solution entailing the termination of the sponsorship of educational research and events by the pharmaceutical industry is relevant. This is because; it can help to seal the loopholes through which the psychiatry practitioners collude with the pharmaceutical industry, by endorsing the medications produced by the industry in return for financial gains. However, the major weakness associated with this solution is that it is likely to cause more harm than good. There are authentic and genuine researches in psychiatry that have been sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, which have eventually helped to developed meaningful medications (Cosgrove & Bursztajn, 2008). Thus, terminating such sponsorship may affect he medical research and education negatively, since it is through such sponsorships that sufficient funding for sensitive and expensive medical experimentations and researches is achieved (Smith, 2012). Thus, for this reason, the termination of the sponsorship of the medical research and education by the pharmaceutical industry might not be very helpful to the society after all. Conclusion The collusion between psychiatry practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry has brought more harm to the society. The psychiatry practitioners have benefited from receiving fees from the industry, in return for endorsing unnecessary drugs and medications developed by the industry. On the other hand, the society has suffered from elevated social phobia, increased depression and lack of research into more occupational and psychological therapy treatments, which can help address mental disorders. Therefore, it is important that the government establishes a specialized body that will control both the pharmaceutical industry and the medical research and educational institutions, to ensure that both parties are involved in conducting meaningful research. This will result in the development of medications that are only targeted at treating real mental health disorders. References Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. Random House Trade Paperbacks http://www.hks.harvard.edu/mrcbg/fellows/T_Christian_Study_Group/Session%203/Truth_about_Drug_Companies.pdf Bettelheim, A., Cooper, M.H., Jost, K., Koch, K., &Masci, D. (1999). Drugmakers under siege. CQ Researcher, 9, 755-764. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?id=cqresrre1999090300 Caroll, J. (2009). Introduction to the pharmaceutical industry: Opposing viewpoints. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010576101&source=Bookmark&u=psucic&jsid=f4ea1d0587d6e8b57b03d4445fb6b037 Cosgrove, L., & Bursztajn, H. (2008, May 18). Undue Pharmaceutical Influence on Psychiatric Practice. Psychiatric Times. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/undue-pharmaceutical-influence-psychiatric-practice Cosgrove, L., Krimsky, S., Vijayaraghavan, M., & Schneider, L. (2006). Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry. Psychotherapy and Psychomatics,75, 154-160.doi: 10.1159/000091772 Moynihan, R., Heath, I., Henry, D. (2002). Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering commentary: medicalisation of risk factors. BMJ, 324, 886. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/324/7342/886.1 Smith, B.L. (2012). Inappropriate prescribing. Monitor on Psychology,43, 36. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/prescribing.aspx Read More