Doctors, Tobacco, and Opioids- A Comparative Analysis of Medical Ethics and Industry Influence

Doctors, Tobacco, and Opioids- A Comparative Analysis of Medical Ethics and Industry Influence

Comparison

Gardner and Brandt (2006) underline the concerning link between physicians and tobacco product advertising. In the 1930s and 1940s, doctors were used to market certain tobacco brands, citing their health advantages to consumers. Around this time, there was minimal epidemiological research tying smoking to lung cancer and other adverse health effects. Doctors received incentives for appearing in tobacco industry advertising. Eventually, epidemiological studies revealed the undeniable health hazards of smoking, prompting medical associations to strengthen restrictions prohibiting doctors from encouraging tobacco use.

On the other hand, physicians have been linked to the rise of opioids. Certain pills have been advertised by pharmaceutical corporations as a safe treatment for chronic pain (Hirsch, 2017). There have also been reports of doctors pushing indiscriminate drug usage through pill mills. Physicians advocated the use of opioids to treat pain, oblivious to the fatal consequences of opioid usage.

Differences

The role of doctors in fostering opiate addiction and tobacco use varies. Doctors were acting as conspirators in the marketing of tobacco usage because they pushed cigarettes while being aware of its harmful effects. However, in the case of the opioid epidemic, the physicians can be considered innocent spectators. Save for a few situations when they did it for profit, most physicians were simply attempting to assist patients in managing chronic pain.

Moral Equivalence

According to Facione and Gittens (2016), moral equivalence is when one compares two issues or things, regarding them as either good or bad, regardless of their actions. Moral equivalence applies to the physician’s role in the opioid crisis and tobacco consumption proliferation. On the one hand, the doctors giving patients pills have good intentions of helping them deal with chronic pain, unaware that this could lead to addictions and dependence on the pills. On the other hand, physicians implicated in promoting tobacco consumption did so for profits, with little regard for public health. Therefore, the actions between the two parties are not morally equivalent since those promoting cigarettes do so for profit, while doctors prescribing pills to help patients deal with chronic pain do so in the patient’s best interest.

References

Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice.” American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017). The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs. Missouri Medicine, 114(2), 82–90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953Links to an external site.
The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It BelongsLinks to an external site.
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)
Introduction
The medical profession has a muddled and contradictory association with its approach toward the tobacco industry. While the profession now firmly opposes smoking and vigorously publicizes the serious, even fatal, health hazards associated with smoking, this was not always so. Advertisements for tobacco products, including cigarettes “… became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations” (Wolinsky & Brune, 1994). Physicians and references to doctors and smoking were once common in tobacco industry advertisements. The story of physicians and the promotion of smoking can be found in “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice” (Gardner & Brandt, 2006).

Doctors, Tobacco, and Opioids- A Comparative Analysis of Medical Ethics and Industry Influence

The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by trade publications (King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and by physicians themselves (Hirsch, 2019).

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, research the history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising. Read about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then, address the following:

In what way are the two situations comparable?
In what way are they different?
Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors with smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific.