February
11, 2013
To the
DAA Board,
RE: CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP AND DAA
I am
against corporate sponsorship of any kind for any organisation who represents
themselves externally (or internally) as an ‘advocate’. This is because the mission and vision for
corporations is, for the most part, in conflict with the mission and vision of
an advocacy organisation. Whether
intended or not, whether perceived or real, an advocacy organisation with
corporate sponsorship can never truly advocate [because of the conflict of
interests].
I submit
with this statement the Guidelines for ethical relationships between physicians
and industry, Third Edition 2006, by the Royal Australian College of
Physicians. This publication is
currently under review and due for release later this year.
I
recommend DAA adopt the RACP guidelines as a benchmark for ‘next steps’ on
addressing their corporate relations. As
well as make consideration for an ‘ethics committee’ to monitor all process and
procedure across the organisation, this includes executive proceedings,
member-executive interactions, member-member interactions, and any external
relations. In particular (Pg 5):
Some health care professionals may be unaware they are
being influenced or argue that it could happen to others but never to them. The
guidelines recognise that everyone can be influenced and that health care
professionals need constantly to evaluate their relationships with industry.
Which
appears consistent with DAAs current position that there is ‘no problem with
having sponsorship’, and specifically, ‘the DAA sponsorship policy is clear’
and members are referred to the policy should they have concerns about these
relationships.
I suggest
DAA consider in particular (Pg 7): Implementation of the
guidelines and Conflict of Interests committees
- In every organisational or practice setting a group of
individuals should be identified with responsibility for ensuring that
processes exist for identifying issues and developing policies relevant to
relations with industry in that particular setting. This function may be taken
on by a pre-existing body such as an Ethics Committee or a Conflict of
Interests Committee may need to be established.
- Details of membership of this group and the outcomes
of its deliberations should be publicly available
- The group, or those delegated by it, should have
responsibility for deciding how to respond to complaints, inquiries and
changing circumstances.
At
minimum, DAA needs to offer an ‘opt out’ clause at the time of membership
renewal for members to request their address is not given to a third
party. This should specify the ‘giving
of addresses’ as an incentive for sponsorship, where members would need to
again opt out. That the ‘opt out’ process is clear, is implemented, and there
is an avenue for alerting DAA to ‘opt out’ not working (i.e member continues to
receive unwanted material). The ‘opt
out’ is to recognise ‘informed consent’ in business-member relations, privacy,
and the ‘right to choose’.
Yours
sincerely
Melanie
Voevodin
Dietitian,
Health Economist
