On September 8, 2003, The Nation revealed that the Sri Lanka College of Paediatricians (SLCP)
had obtained sponsorship from Fonterra, which although perfectly legal
compromised the integrity of the College due to the implied endorsement of all
Fonterra products. Suspicious indeed was
the fact that Fonterra did not name itself (why?) but instead used advertising
elements used in PediaPro (its flagship infant milk food product) promotions in
branding the Annual Scientific Congress of the College.
The College, responding to a query by The Nation said that a complaint had
been lodged with the Press Council on that story. The Nation is surprised that the College has not availed itself of
ample opportunity to provide answers to a set of very simple questions put to
it.
Here are the questions again:
Does
this amount to the College of Paediatricians officially endorsing PediaPro?
Does this not compromise the College from offering independent and professional
opinion on PediaPro or any Fonterra brand in the event of suspected wrongdoing
including unethical advertising? Does the College have sponsorship and
endorsement policies, and if so what are they?
That was an opportunity to state position on
sponsorship, endorsement and unethical advertising. It is not too late.
The
Nation does not have an axe to grind with any professional
association. Indeed, it is in the interest of both consumers and professional
bodies to be clear about contentious issues such as sponsorship and endorsement. In this, there needs to be clarity on the
vexed matter of conflict of interest and the related issue of unambiguous
disclosure.
The
Nation, earlier, raised similar questions with respect to
the Nutrition Society of Sri Lanka (NSSL).
The NSSL maintained complete silence, even after we carried a
clarification and asked a few follow up questions. Debate and discussion, openness and
professionalism, all of which are taken as givens in bodies such as the NSSL
and the SLCP, appear to be anathema to them.
Do
such organizations prefer to be insulated from all scrutiny and remain within
comfortable professional walls wherein they can dish out consumer advice to a
largely ignorant population that (still) hold certain categories of
professionals such as doctors in high regard, we wonder.
Perhaps
this is the time to broach the subject of medical and nutrition ethics.
The Nation,
for its part, has highlighted important issues which we believe the consumers
need to be aware of. In the spirit of fairness,
we have always accorded the opportunity for all relevant stakeholders to offer
comment and critique and this, most importantly, in a media culture that for a
multiplicity of reasons, where corporate entities are treated as holy
cows. That culture, we believe along
with many professionals and consumer rights activists, needs to change.
We
believe that a responsible and ethical media outfit is compelled to talk about unethical
sponsorships and issues of conflict of interest. The public has a right to such
information. Silence and secrecy, cute and clever advertising with subliminal
messages is unethical; acceptance of sponsorship from entities that have no
qualms about such practices is unprofessional.
Again, if either of the organizations mentioned above or anyone else for
that matter wish to take issue with the contention, the pages of The Nation are open to them.
In
this regard it is important to note that although the Sri Lankan consumer may
be kept in the dark by all and sundry, in Western nations and also in neighboring
India there are many consumer lobbies and others that expose and also oppose
the unethical practices of the so-called professional associations. It is now
common practice to publish sponsorship details of the professional associations
on the internet for the perusal of any interested party. There are websites
that routinely publish critical evaluation of sponsorship acceptance of professional
associations and other unethical activities. Any professional association that
balks from scrutiny is naturally the subject of suspicion.
The Nation
firmly believes that professionals have an important role to play, especially
given an overall institutional arrangement which does no insulate citizen from
politician. This is why, we make three
simple requests to the President and the Council of the College of
Paediatricians for the benefit of the public. Firstly, kindly publish the
sponsorship details (i.e. sponsors, financial and other perks received) of the
College for the last ten years. Secondly,
publish the evaluation criteria used by the College to evaluate the products of
the sponsors (if such criteria are non-existent, please explain why not). Thirdly, we urge the College to publish the
scientific position of the College (i.e. ‘Position Papers’) regarding PediaPro
and similar products on the market or, in the event that such position is
absent, explain why (by implication) mechanisms don’t exist to arrive at
positions, one way or another.
Millions
of consumers (and medical professionals) are in the dark. Therefore, the
College has a serious, professional and a moral obligation, we believe, to
enlighten the members of the public that takes the word of the medical profession
and the scientific community unquestioningly and with absolute faith. We will
be very willing to provide space for such publications. This will afford the
readers an opportunity to make their own determinations with regard to ethics,
integrity and professionalism and moreover whether or not such entities are
working in the public interest.
