Recommendations from the Code of Ethics for the New Zealand Medical Profession.

1. Doctors should not allow their standing as medical practitioners to be used inappropriately in the endorsement of commercial products. When doctors are acting as agents for, or have a financial or other interest in, commercial organisations or products, their interest should be declared. If endorsing a product, doctors should use only the proper chemical name for drugs, vaccines and specific ingredients, rather than the trade or commercial name. Any endorsement should be based on specific independent scientific evidence, and that evidence should be clearly outlined.
2. Doctors should accept that their professional reputation must be based upon their ability, technical skills and integrity. Doctors should advertise professional services or make professional announcements only in circumstances where the primary purpose of any notification is factual presentation of information reasonably needed by any person wishing to make an informed decision about the appropriateness and availability of services that may meet his or her medical needs. Any such announcement or advertisement must be demonstrably true in all respects and contain no testimonial material or endorsement of clinical skills. Qualifications not recognised by appropriate New Zealand statutory bodies should not be quoted.
3. Doctors should exercise careful judgement before accepting any gift, hospitality or gratuity which could be interpreted as an inducement to use or endorse any product, equipment or policy. Doctors must not allow any gifts to influence clinical judgement. In all cases of doubt, advice should be sought from relevant professional organisations.
4. Commercial interests of an employer, health provider or doctor must not interfere with the free exercise of clinical judgement in determining the best ways of meeting the needs of individual patients or the community, nor with the capacities of individual doctors to co-operate with other health providers in the interests of their patients, nor compromise standards of care or autonomy of patients in order to meet financial or commercial targets.
5. Where potential conflict arises between the best interests of particular patients and commercial or rationing prerogatives, doctors have a duty to explain the issues and dilemmas to their patients. Doctors should state quite clearly what their intentions are and why they advocate particular patterns of diagnosis, treatment, referral or resource use. Commercial arrangements that have the potential to impinge on the patient’s care should be declared to the patient.
6. Doctors who provide capital towards health services in the private sector are entitled to expect a reasonable return on investment. Where there may be a conflict of interests, the circumstances should be disclosed and open to scrutiny.
7. Like all professionals, doctors have the right to fair recompense for the use of their skills and experience. However, motives of profit must not be permitted to influence clinical judgement.
8. Doctors should insist that any contracts into which they enter, including those involving patients, be written in clear language such that all parties have a clear understanding of the intentions and rules.
9. Doctors who find themselves in a potentially controversial contractual or commercial situation should seek the advice of a suitable colleague or organisation.