3 ms·
On the one hand, it was clear that the website wasn't meant to be informative, since it always recommended the client's drug no matter what the questionnaire re
by somestag 10y ago
On the one hand, it was clear that the website wasn't meant to be informative, since it always recommended the client's drug no matter what the questionnaire returned. Clearly that was a bit shady.
On the other hand... as a general rule, I don't really want software developers deciding what to code based on their personal medical opinions. That can cut both ways.
If the author felt it was unethical at the time (and he says it didn't really cross his mind), the best he could have done would have been to quit. Then, of course, someone else would have taken his place. Perhaps his conscience would have been cleaner, but I doubt any girls would have been saved. The stark reality is that ethical quandaries like this call for an all-or-nothing approach; either you're disturbed enough to report their actions to the authorities, or you don't do anything at all. You can quit, but that won't save anyone, so you're not really helping. (Unless you're irreplaceable, of course.)
There's another important element to the author's story: the sketchy questionnaire and the drug's harmful side effects weren't really linked in any way. Marketing is marketing; as the author says, he knew the job of the site was to promote the drug. Shady questionnaire or not, that's not inherently problematic. If the pharma company misled its customers on the side effects or knew the drug wasn't safe, that's an entirely separate issue that the author simply could not have known of. Drugs are complicated business, and they can be helpful, dangerous, important, and abused all at the same time.
The "last line of defense" statement was a powerful one, but not one I feel I can really agree with. It's often said that pharmacists are the last line of defense for prescription drugs, and that's how it should be; they actually have the training to know what they're doing. Software engineers might be a knowledgeable bunch, but they're not so knowledgeable they should be making calls outside their expertise.
- madmax96 10y agoI basically agree with this. However, I should add that: > Perhaps his conscience would have been cleaner Is a big deal. Obviously, it is up to the individual to determine the proper course of action for themselves, but I disagree with the line of thought that 'you should stay in unethical situations because someone else will be there and at least this way you can create change.' Rather, you ought to act authentically and with honestly.
- kamjam 10y agoI agree with you totally. I'm sure the author feels some responsibility for having some played some part of this, but it's the pharma company that should be ashamed. With regards to advertising, I'm from the UK so we don't get much medical advertising, but in the US it is crazy. Half the adverts in commercial breaks seem to be for medicines with half a dozen potential side effects. > Then, if a visitor could prove they had a prescription, they were given access to a patient portal with more specific info about the drug. I assume that it was just further information about the drug. In the UK only a doctor can prescribe controlled medicines. I assume it's the same in Canada... if so it's for the doctor, who has had years of training in this field, to prescribe the correct drug. Yes, some drugs cause side effects for some people, and medicines need to be adjusted/changed as a result. We don't know how many people died as a result of the medicine, but that's what government regulation should deal with not allowing untested drugs to be sold. > We’re approaching a time where software will drive the vehicle that transports your family to soccer practice. There are already AI programs that help doctors diagnose disease. It’s not hard to imagine them recommending prescription drugs soon, too. For me this was the most (and only) important paragraph of the post.