skip to main content

Conflict of interest (pharma) — MCCQE Part 1 MCQ

Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.

HardEthics & ProfessionalismConflict of interest (pharma)MCCQE Part 1

A pharmaceutical company offers a family physician an all-expenses-paid international conference trip if the clinic reaches a specified quarterly prescription target for its new drug. The physician has reviewed good evidence that the drug benefits some patients and proposes disclosing the arrangement to every patient. What is the most appropriate response?

Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.

Reveal the answer and explanation

Correct answer: C — Decline because a benefit contingent on prescribing compromises professional autonomy

The offer is not ordinary independent continuing education; the personal benefit is explicitly contingent on reaching a prescription target. That structure creates an unacceptable incentive to let industry influence clinical judgment and prescribing. The physician should decline it and continue to select treatments using evidence, patient circumstances, alternatives, harms, and preferences. Evidence that the drug is effective for some patients does not justify a quota-linked personal reward. Disclosure is important for legitimate financial relationships, but disclosure does not transform a prescribing-contingent inducement into an acceptable arrangement. Donating money or routing signatures through a colleague leaves the underlying influence intact. Appropriate industry-supported education requires safeguards such as independence of content and absence of a quid pro quo tied to patient care. The physician should also follow applicable institutional and provincial conflict-of-interest rules.

Reference: Canadian Medical Association, Guidelines for Physicians in Interactions With Industry: https://policybase.cma.ca/media/PolicyPDF/PD21-20.pdf