Search

Summary: Social media are a powerful tool that creates a unique opportunity for the young plastic surgeon and trainee to share content, brand oneself, educate the public, and develop one's own professional voice early. The majority of all plastic surgery programs and particularly those that are highly ranked have social media opportunities for their residents, yet clear rules to guide implementation of social media programming in residency have remained unspecified. These guidelines and pitfalls can be used to inform a productive and professional entry into plastic surgery social media use for the resident and young plastic surgeon. Details regarding specific platform use to maximize exposure are provided. The core principles of patient safety and privacy, authentic photography, plastic surgery education and advocacy, and professionalism inform these guidelines. Pitfalls include establishment of an online physician-patient relationship, engaging in debate by means of online reviews, providing medical entertainment, and engaging in non-plastic surgery politics. Use of these guidelines will allow the young plastic surgeon and trainee to succeed by means of social media platforms in an ethical and professional manner., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Identify the key social media platforms to use. 2. Recall the primary components of the code of conduct when using social media. 3. Recognize how to build a social media presence and brand. 4. Summarize the primary applications of social media in plastic surgery., Summary: Social media are a growing new tool that has emerged in recent years, with numerous applications that have allowed for an effective means to rapidly disseminate information. Plastic surgeons must gain an understanding of the technology to both grow their practices and the specialty as a whole in an ethical and responsible way. The different platforms available; code of conduct; how to build a social media presence; and the main applications of advertising, education, and research, as based on evidence-based recommendations, are presented.

Recently, stem cells in aesthetics have attracted increased attention, especially as they have become a popular trend that is being mass-marketed to consumers on the Internet and social media. Unfortunately, studies have shown this marketing to be misleading as it portrays many purported benefits of stem cells that have yet to be proven in the limited studies that are available. It is important for clinicians to understand the evidence and marketing behind any new trends, especially in the fast-paced world of aesthetics, where treatments often outpace current medical understanding. As clinicians, we have bioethical and professional obligations to educate ourselves on current trends, ensure adequate patient safety, and advocate for continued consumer education.

Similar to the outcry over the ethics of website marketing by physicians in the 1990s, the resistance to plastic surgeons' use of social media has been loud and vehement. Many physicians, although receptive to website marketing, view social media as too radical or unprofessional. Despite the controversy, the value of social media as a communication tool for interacting with and educating patients is supported by studies showing that 65 percent of Americans and 90 percent of young adults use social media. Many plastic surgeons have been early adopters, as reflected by the articles written to help board-certified plastic surgeons use social media in academic medicine and for their practice. However, there is little guidance for young plastic surgeons who wish to use social media for professional purposes. In this study, the authors discuss the ethics and current literature on social media use by young plastic surgeons and make recommendations for how to use social media during training and after residency graduation.

Cosmetic dentistry is a divisive discipline. Within discourses that raise questions of the purpose of the dental profession, cosmetic dentistry is frequently criticised on the basis of it being classified as a non-therapeutic intervention. This article re-evaluates this assertion through examination of ethics of care of the self, healthcare definitions and the social purpose of dentistry, finding the traditional position to be wanting in its conclusions. The slide of dentistry from a healthcare vocation towards being a predominantly business-focused interaction between clinician and consumer conflicts with traditional notions of dentistry as a profession. Whilst it is undeniable that cosmetic dental treatment particularly lends itself to the commercial paradigm, this is not exclusive to this area of professional practice. The cultural basis of dental appearance and the potential of the dental profession to exert coercive pressure upon the public to undergo treatment that is based upon social norms is discussed. This essay concludes that cosmetic dentistry is undeniably part of the professional purpose of 21st Century dentistry. However, the caveat that may be placed upon this, is that this status is conditional upon the professional conduct of dental practitioners remaining resilient to commercial practices not compatible with professional obligations., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Ethical guidelines for appropriate use of social media are beginning to be delineated. As social media becomes ingrained in plastic surgery culture, education of residents on appropriate use of social media is increasingly important. Recently, plastic surgery residency programs have begun to utilize social media., Objectives: This study characterized the trends and content of plastic surgery residency-associated Instagram accounts., Methods: Active individual residency program Instagram accounts were identified for integrated plastic surgery programs. Metrics for each account were retrieved on September 16, 2017, including date of first post, number of posts, and followers. Individual posts were analyzed for content of post., Results: Fourteen of 67 (21%) integrated plastic surgery programs were found to have active Instagram accounts. There has been an exponential growth of programs adopting Instagram since August 2015. A total of 806 posts were created. Thirty-two (3.97%) posts had intraoperative photos and only one (0.12%) showed a patient image. There were 4466 followers of plastic surgery residency programs. A linear correlation was found between number of posts and number of followers, while there was no correlation of number of followers and time since account start., Conclusions: Instagram use by plastic surgery integrated programs continues to grow exponentially, and programs are appropriately using the platform. Active use of the resident social media results in increased influence. Resident use of social media has many benefits. We propose social media guidelines for plastic surgery trainees and advocate for continued appropriate use and autoregulation by plastic surgery trainees.

Over the years, the pharmaceutical industry has been at the forefront of research and innovation in drug discovery and development. The process of drug discovery extending from preclinical studies to multicentric clinical trials and postmarketing phase is a costly affair running into billions of dollars. On the flip side, not all investigational molecules clear the trial phases and get approved, which puts pressure on the manufacturers to maximize the profit from approved drugs. It is in this key area that the practice of drug promotion plays its role. The World Health Organization defines drug promotion as "all informational and persuasive activities by manufacturers and distributors, the effect of which is to influence the prescription, supply, purchase or use of medicinal drugs". With its humble intent of creating awareness among healthcare professionals and updating their knowledge on recent advances in treatment options, drug promotion has been an important tool, but gradually it has evolved to embrace aggressive marketing strategies and sometimes unethical business and scientific practices where the need for profit-making eclipses commitment to patient care and scientific exploration. In this review, we discuss the evolution of drug promotion practices, the various types, its merits and demerits, the influence of drug promotion on physician prescribing behaviour, the role of regulatory bodies, unethical promotional practices and finally summarize with future directions., (© 2018 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: Multi-level marketing (MLM) of nutrition products has experienced dramatic growth in recent decades. 'Wellness' is the second most popular niche in the MLM industry and represents 35% of sales among all the products in 2016. This category includes dietary supplements, weight management and sports nutrition products. The aim of this paper is to analyse whether this practice is legal and ethical., Methods: An analysis of available documentary information about the legal aspects of Multi-level marketing business was performed. Ethical reflexion was based on the "principlism" approach., Results: We argue that, while being a controversial business model, MLM is not fraudulent from a legal point of view. However, it is an unethical strategy obviating all the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence and autonomy. What is at stake is the possible economic scam and the potential harm those products could cause due to unproven efficacy, exceeding daily nutrient requirements and potential toxicity. The sale of dietary and nutrition supplements products by physicians and dieticians presents a conflict of interests that can undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own., Conclusion: While considering that MLM of dietary supplements and other nutrition products are a legal business strategy, we affirm that it is an unethical practice. MLM products that have nutritional value or promoted as remedies may be unnecessary and intended for conditions that are unsuitable for self-prescription as well., (Copyright © 2018 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

Plastic surgeons have evolved their methods of reaching potential patients by using various forms of social media. Such platforms can educate, inform, and, for some, entertain. Social media now allows consumers to compare themselves to a much wider, if not global, set of peers that might further exacerbate their anxiety regarding their appearance. Plastic surgeons should ensure that use of patient images does not violate privacy or create unreasonable expectations about the results that can be obtained; nor should plastic surgeons' marketing objectify women. Professionalism on the part of plastic surgeons, along with the utmost respect for patients, must remain paramount., (© 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Advertising a plastic surgery practice on social media is fraught with both practical and ethical challenges. We use an institutional betrayal framework to explore the range of potential harms to patient well-being while also considering the pitfalls of social media activity, especially marketing, for practitioners. We also give consideration to the relative benefits that such online patient-clinician relationships can provide. In our analysis, we draw on specific examples of plastic surgery procedures prominently featured on social media, including the Vampire Facelift ® ., (© 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Bioethics tries to define the medical activity and any other related activity needed to maintain the function of a health institution, through the development of principles and moral values. Bioethics is quite broad and has a background that combines various disciplines such as medicine, philosophy, law, sociology, and theology. Advertising and promotion are part of the strategy aimed at developing and maintaining relationships with the targeted audience (patients). To regulate this activity, it was necessary to develop ethical rules of healthcare marketing. The content of promotional messages must be truthful and should not create unjustified expectations. The doctor or the healthcare unit must be able to provide the services claimed in the advertisement. From an ethical point of view, marketing communication should be more consistent with reality, even if its purpose is to shed light on more attractive issues. In this context, the categories and groups vulnerable to certain content of the advertising message should be mentioned. A patient with a serious suffering will be easily influenced and will tend to trust any promise easily, with the desire to heal. Ethically, the information presented must not alter the reality and should not give false hopes to patients. Those responsible for marketing in the healthcare field must keep in mind the ethics code of the medical profession, must maintain an honest marketing communication, which does not create inaccurate expectations, must not denigrate other colleagues, and must use a message whose content should respect the dignity of the profession.

The purpose of this study is to investigate current attitudes and opinions of physicians' advertising and to compare them to the attitudes expressed 10 years previously. This study was designed to determine (a) consumers' attitudes toward advertising by physicians, and (b) whether age, occupation, income, education, or sex of consumer accounted for any significant difference in attitudes toward physicians who advertise. The study seems to confirm the belief of many marketing professionals that advertising and marketing do not have a place in the management and operation of professional services.

The best studies on the relationship between pharmaceutical corporations and medicine have recognized that it is an ambiguous one. Yet most scholarship has pursued a simpler, more saleable narrative in which pharma is a scheming villain and medicine its maidenly victim. In this article, I argue that such crude moral framing blunts understanding of the murky realities of medicine's relationship with pharma and, in consequence, holds back reform. My goal is to put matters right in respect to one critical area of scholarly interest, the medical journal publication. Pharma relies on peer advocacy to sell its wares to prescribing doctors. This is an arrangement in which clinicians' qualified colleagues, including "key opinion leaders," are recruited by pharmaceutical corporations and marketing agencies to deliver commercially expedient content to their professional fellows. Precisely how this practice works in the setting of publications is not well understood because ethicists studying the problem have made too much of the narrative of corporate villainy and medical victimhood. Accordingly, criticism of industry publications has been preoccupied with the crudely dishonest practices of ghostwriting, ghost authorship, and "ghost management," vices condemned as "dirty little secrets" perpetrated from "behind the scenes" with the connivance of academic "shills" or "guest authors," in contempt of standards set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. This account is appealing, and yet it is wrong or, at the very least, seriously incomplete, with only limited relevance to the actualities of contemporary industry practices. In truth, many commercial publications are not developed in secret but fashioned within a culture of open collaboration, where academic authors make substantial, independent contributions; pharmaceutical companies are showcased rather than hidden; and medicine's editorial standards assist rather than impede the workings of commerce., (© 2016 The Hastings Center.)

There are serious concerns about the commercialization of healthcare and adoption of the business approach in medicine. As market dynamics endanger established professional values, healthcare workers face more complicated ethical dilemmas in their daily practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the willingness of medical students to accept the assertions of commercialized healthcare and the factors affecting their level of agreement, factors which could influence their moral stance when market demands conflict with professional values. A cross-sectional study was conducted in three medical schools in Turkey. The study population consisted of first-, third-, and sixth-year students, and 1,781 students participated in total. Students were asked to state if they agreed with the assertions of commercialized healthcare. Of all students, 87.2 per cent agreed with at least one of the assertions, and one-fifth (20.8 per cent) of them agreed with more than half of the assertions. First-year students significantly agreed more with some assertions than third- and sixth-year students. Being female, having mid-level family income, choosing medicine due to idealistic reasons, and being in the third or sixth years of medical study increased the probability of disagreement. Also, studying in a medical school that included integrated lectures on health policies, rights related to health, and health inequities, along with early field visits, increased the probability of disagreement. This study suggests that agreement with the assertions of commercialized healthcare might be prevalent among students at a considerable level. We argue that this level of agreement is not compatible with best practice in professional ethics and indicates the need for an educational intervention in order to have physicians who give priority to patients' best interests in the face of market demands.

Background: Genealogical research and ancestry testing are popular recreational activities but little is known about the impact of the use of these services on clients' biological and social families. Ancestry databases are being enriched with self-reported data and data from deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analyses, but also are being linked to other direct-to-consumer genetic testing and research databases. As both family history data and DNA can provide information on more than just the individual, we asked whether companies, as a part of the consent process, were informing clients, and through them clients' relatives, of the potential implications of the use and linkage of their personal data., Methods: We used content analysis to analyse publically-available consent and informational materials provided to potential clients of ancestry and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to determine what consent is required, what risks associated with participation were highlighted, and whether the consent or notification of third parties was suggested or required., Results: We identified four categories of companies providing: 1) services based only on self-reported data, such as personal or family history; 2) services based only on DNA provided by the client; 3) services using both; and 4) services using both that also have a research component. The amount of information provided on the potential issues varied significantly across the categories of companies. 'Traditional' ancestry companies showed the greatest awareness of the implications for family members, while companies only asking for DNA focused solely on the client. While in some cases companies included text recommending clients inform their relatives, showing they recognised the issues, often it was located within lengthy terms and conditions or privacy statements that may not be read by potential clients., Conclusions: We recommend that companies should make it clearer that clients should inform third parties about their plans to participate, that third parties' data will be provided to companies, and that that data will be linked to other databases, thus raising privacy and issues on use of data. We also suggest investigating whether a 'generational consent' should be created that would include more than just the individual in decisions about participating in genetic investigations.

Background: Section 114 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 regulates the promotion of health economic information by pharmaceutical companies to US health plans. Greater clarity is important given demands by payers and other stakeholders for evidence of value., Objectives: To develop hypothetical case studies of health economic promotions to examine legal and policy implications., Methods: We constructed for pedagogical purposes 10 categories of potential health economic promotions. We generated hypothetical case studies for each category, including questions about whether each might be allowable under Section 114. The case studies were developed around the following categories: 1) costing out on-label clinical end points; 2) promotion of a costing exercise to physicians working in an accountable care organization setting; 3) burden-of-illness claims; 4) economic analysis of a formulary restriction policy; 5) extrapolations to doses, populations, or settings not covered in trials; 6) adherence claims; 7) "utilization of care" as a secondary end point in randomized clinical trials; 8) costing out a competitor drug's adverse event; 9) economic analysis of comparative effectiveness claims using an indirect treatment comparison; and 10) extrapolating from surrogate to long-term outcomes in an economic model., Discussion: Most cases seem to fall into a gray zone given haziness around what constitutes "competent and reliable evidence" and "directly relate[d]" to an approved indication. In practice, it is difficult to know what the section allows given the imprecision of the statute and lack of guidance about its scope., Conclusion: Ideally, future guidance will provide clarity and flexibility., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The cost of drugs is a major and rapidly rising component of health-care expenditures. We survey recent literature on the ethics and economics of skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices and find that advances in economic research have increased the sharpness and focus of the ethically based calls to increase access by modifying patent protection and reducing prices. In some cases, research supports ethical arguments for broader access. Other research suggests that efforts to broaden access result in unintended consequences for innovation and the medical needs of patients. Both ethicists and economists need to be more cognizant of the real clinical settings in which physicians practice medicine with real patients. Greater cross-disciplinary interaction among economists, ethicists, and physicians can help reduce the disjunction between innovation and access and improve access and patient care. This dialogue will impact private industry and may spur new multistakeholder paradigms for drug discovery, development, and pricing.

In 2012, Duke University initiated a research project, funded by an unrestricted research grant from Millennium Laboratories, a drug testing company. The project focused on assessing the frequency and nature of questionable, unethical, and illegal business practices in the clinical drug testing industry and assessing the potential for establishing a business code of ethics. Laboratory leaders, clinicians, industry attorneys, ethicists, and consultants participated in the survey, were interviewed, and attended two face-to-face meetings to discuss a way forward. The study demonstrated broad acknowledgment of variations in the legal and regulatory environment, resulting in inconsistent enforcement of industry practices. Study participants expressed agreement that overtly illegal practices sometimes exist, particularly when laboratory representatives and clinicians discuss reimbursement, extent of testing, and potential business incentives with medical practitioners. Most respondents reported directly observing probable violations involving marketing materials, contracts, or, in the case of some individuals, directly soliciting people with offers of clinical supplies and other "freebies." While many study respondents were skeptical that voluntary standards alone would eliminate questionable business practices, most viewed ethics codes and credentialing as an important first step that could potentially mitigate uneven enforcement, while improving quality of care and facilitating preferred payment options for credentialed parties. Many were willing to participate in future discussions and industry-wide initiatives to improve the environment.

Background: The shortage of donors for organ transplantation has stimulated debate on financial incentives for living kidney donors. This study aims to describe the range of attitudes and opinions of transplant physicians on financial reimbursement, compensation, and incentives in living kidney donation., Study Design: Qualitative study., Setting & Participants: 110 transplant nephrologists and surgeons from 12 countries across 43 transplantation units in Europe, Australasia, and North America., Methodology: Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted., Analytical Approach: Transcripts were thematically analyzed., Results: We identified 7 major themes. Prioritizing the removal of disincentives for living kidney donors was largely deemed acceptable. By contrast, provision of financial incentives raised concerns about undermining benevolence, compromising human dignity and value, and traversing market forces. Some contended that financial incentives potentially were legitimate if regulated, arguing that this would maximize utility in transplantation, but most also acknowledged the difficulty and that operational feasibility of a regulated system of financial incentivization may be limited., Limitations: Participants were English speaking and from Western high-income countries; therefore, the transferability of our findings may be limited., Conclusions: Transplantation specialists believed that minimizing disincentives would support equity and justice in living kidney donation. Direct financial incentivization for living kidney donors, even in the context of a regulated market, was regarded by most as unjustified because of the potential moral consequences and uncertain feasibility. Removing financial disincentives and safeguarding the intrinsic volunteerism, value, and meaning of donation were viewed to uphold integrity in living kidney donation., (Copyright © 2014 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Advances in management of clinical conditions are being made in several resource poor countries including Nigeria. Yet, the code of medical ethics which bars physician and health practices from advertising the kind of services they render deters these practices. This is worsened by the incursion of medical tourism facilitators (MTF) who continue to market healthcare services across countries over the internet and social media thereby raising ethical questions. A significant review of the advertisement ban in the code of ethics is long overdue. Limited knowledge about advances in medical practice among physicians and the populace, the growing medical tourism industry and its attendant effects, and the possibility of driving brain gain provide evidence to repeal the code. Ethical issues, resistance to change and elitist ideas are mitigating factors working in the opposite direction. The repeal of the code of medical ethics against advertising will undoubtedly favor health facilities in the country that currently cannot advertise the kind of services they render. A repeal or review of this code of medical ethics is necessary with properly laid down guidelines on how advertisements can be and cannot be done.

Background: The emerging field of stem cell-based aesthetics has raised ethical concerns related to advertising campaigns and standards for safety and efficacy., Objectives: The authors sought to characterize the attitudes of plastic surgeons regarding the ethics of stem cell-based aesthetics., Methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed to 4592 members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Statements addressed ethical concerns about informed consent, conflicts of interest, advertising, regulation, and stem cell tourism. An agreement score (AS) from 0 to 100 was calculated for each statement. Majority agreement was designated as ≥60 and majority disagreement as ≤40., Results: A total of 770 questionnaires were received (16.7%). The majority of respondents indicated that knowledge regarding the risks and benefits of stem cell procedures is insufficient to obtain valid informed consent (AS, 29) and that direct-to-consumer advertising for these technologies is inappropriate and unethical (AS, 23). Most respondents reported that patients should be actively warned against traveling abroad to receive aesthetic cell therapies (AS, 86) and that registries and evaluations of these clinics should be made publicly available (AS, 71). Even more respondents noted that financial conflicts of interest should be disclosed to patients (AS, 96) and that professional societies should participate in establishing regulatory standards (AS, 93)., Conclusions: The plastic surgeons surveyed in this study support a well-regulated, evidence-based approach to aesthetic procedures involving stem cells., (© 2014 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc.)