The pharmaceutical industry makes a huge contribution to the public purse and the medicines produced by its members help millions of patients every year.
If it was not for research and development carried out every year by drug companies, new products would never come on to the market.
However, caution must also applied: pharmaceutical firms are not charities and they are motivated by profit and market share.
A huge chunk of the NHS budget goes on drugs every year and the firms are single-minded in pursuit of these revenues.
So-called 'Big Pharma' also gives ‘generously’ to charity: many patient groups are funded by industry and then, miraculously, demand that their funders’ products are approved.
Our revelations today about the pharma firms funding healthcare professionals and hospitals are concerning.
On one level, it is naïve to suggest there should be no partnerships between the public sector and Big Pharma on health issues. Of course there should be.
It is equally true that collaborations between the industry and universities have, for decades, been positive for patients.
However, there is something intrinsically worrying about individual doctors, nurses and pharmacists taking payments from pharmaceutical giants.
Whether it be for funding medics to attend overseas events, paying conference registration fees, or even advising on products, the public will rightly have concerns about such arrangements.
To its credit, the ABPI – the trade body for Big Pharma – has created a huge database of payments to medics and institutions.
However, there is a catch: doctors and other health professionals must consent to their details being published. In other words, they have a veto.
This newspaper congratulates the consultants, nurses and pharmacists who agreed for details of their payments to be put into the public domain. They have embraced sunlight while some of their colleagues hide in the dark and these individuals should be commended.
The solution is obvious: change the system so it is compulsory for doctors, nurses and pharmacists to comply with the transparency database. Participation should be mandatory, not voluntary.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here