I’ve seen this in other health professional threads so curious to see how some view this: Is it ethical to invest in big pharma stocks? Is it ethical to invest in stocks that profit off psychiatric conditions or medical conditions that may, at least indirectly, impact the patient /clients we see? I’ve also seen stocks involved in for profit psychiatric hospitals. How do others approach this and would you consider this as unethical?
Investments and ethics
- Thread starter PsyPsy
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,184
- Reaction score
- 1,826
For psychologists... Almost in all cases I would say no. There are probably extremely odd outlier cases where there is such a massive and obvious conflict of interest, sure, it may be worth really thinking through and consulting then. But I can't think of one of those that I've ever come across. Maybe some complex pharma research consulting gig with a brand new shiny thing or where someone is only referring patients to a facility they own a large amount of equity in, and refusing to send other places. Heck the providers at the places around town here are stock holders at their place of employment. Its part of the benefit package for some.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,184
- Reaction score
- 1,826
Someone smarter than me please chime in if I'm mistaken. Would love to know.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,858
- Reaction score
- 2,220
It’s not unethical. It would only be unethical (and criminal) if you used inside knowledge to buy and sell stocks before something major happened, ie insider trading. Not that that stops prettymuch every politician from doing exactly that, though.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,136
- Reaction score
- 8,194
(rambling, non caffeinated rant incoming)
Unfortunately, psychologists are fairly idealistic, which affects logical consideration of this subject. Basically, it's only a problem if it is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Everything costs money. It is completely ethical for entities to be compensated for their efforts, including ones you partially own. It is completely ethical for you to be paid for your services. Arguably, it is unethical to not pay someone for their work as it only benefits one side of the equation.
The problem arises when you have an investment that affects HOW you do your job. It's not unethical to own a majority stake of a local psychiatric hospital. It's not unethical to even send your patients to that hospital. It IS unethical to refer all of your patients to that hospital (it is also a federal crime at some point). It IS also unethical to fail to disclose conflict of interests to your patients, without offering choices. It IS ethical to disclose that conflict, and still do engage in that treatment if the patient chooses it. It IS unethical to get paid to send patients to a place (and a crime). Most psych drugs are off patent, so we don't have to worry about this too much. Every now and again, psychologists get in trouble for kickbacks with psych hospitals and rehab centers. Side note: They always lose their license for this, and they never get enough money to cover the loss of income, so it never makes sense to me.
In human subjects research, you have to complete that federal government training every two years, which outlines the specifics on this. IIRC, the federal government requires you to fill out formal disclosures on this but it's been a while. I never understood why psychotherapy research didn't have this. You do NOT screw around with the feds. And there is no reason to do consider screwing around with them. The guy who created the cure for Hep C was a VA employee, who was allowed to take his research with him to found his pharma company, and became a billionaire in like 5 years.
In presentations, our medical colleagues have to disclose this stuff. This is a very good idea, which fits with APA ethical codes. It lets people know that you are not a shill. You get up, say, "I own shares in this stock, so I might be biased", and the audience can put that into their consideration.
In investing, you should only invest in things you understand (according to Buffet). It is a federal crime to use information that is not publicly available, narrowly defined as corporate information (e.g., in your medical executive committee meeting, you learn that your hospital is going bankrupt). Insider information is NOT information that most people do not know (e.g., you notice your patients on a new drug all complain of diarrhea). Otherwise, your education and experience represents an edge in investing. It is completely ethical to invest in unhealthy foods, booze, pharma to treat things you see, treatment centers, credit cards, etc. People can make their own decisions, and substitute symptoms. Investing choices are only a problem if you using your influence with patients to drive them to use things that profit you. Outside of that, your investments can be guided by your own personal morals. I won't invest in several things, not because it would be unethical, but because I find the companies immoral. Or because I dislike the product or individual.
Unfortunately, psychologists are fairly idealistic, which affects logical consideration of this subject. Basically, it's only a problem if it is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Everything costs money. It is completely ethical for entities to be compensated for their efforts, including ones you partially own. It is completely ethical for you to be paid for your services. Arguably, it is unethical to not pay someone for their work as it only benefits one side of the equation.
The problem arises when you have an investment that affects HOW you do your job. It's not unethical to own a majority stake of a local psychiatric hospital. It's not unethical to even send your patients to that hospital. It IS unethical to refer all of your patients to that hospital (it is also a federal crime at some point). It IS also unethical to fail to disclose conflict of interests to your patients, without offering choices. It IS ethical to disclose that conflict, and still do engage in that treatment if the patient chooses it. It IS unethical to get paid to send patients to a place (and a crime). Most psych drugs are off patent, so we don't have to worry about this too much. Every now and again, psychologists get in trouble for kickbacks with psych hospitals and rehab centers. Side note: They always lose their license for this, and they never get enough money to cover the loss of income, so it never makes sense to me.
In human subjects research, you have to complete that federal government training every two years, which outlines the specifics on this. IIRC, the federal government requires you to fill out formal disclosures on this but it's been a while. I never understood why psychotherapy research didn't have this. You do NOT screw around with the feds. And there is no reason to do consider screwing around with them. The guy who created the cure for Hep C was a VA employee, who was allowed to take his research with him to found his pharma company, and became a billionaire in like 5 years.
In presentations, our medical colleagues have to disclose this stuff. This is a very good idea, which fits with APA ethical codes. It lets people know that you are not a shill. You get up, say, "I own shares in this stock, so I might be biased", and the audience can put that into their consideration.
In investing, you should only invest in things you understand (according to Buffet). It is a federal crime to use information that is not publicly available, narrowly defined as corporate information (e.g., in your medical executive committee meeting, you learn that your hospital is going bankrupt). Insider information is NOT information that most people do not know (e.g., you notice your patients on a new drug all complain of diarrhea). Otherwise, your education and experience represents an edge in investing. It is completely ethical to invest in unhealthy foods, booze, pharma to treat things you see, treatment centers, credit cards, etc. People can make their own decisions, and substitute symptoms. Investing choices are only a problem if you using your influence with patients to drive them to use things that profit you. Outside of that, your investments can be guided by your own personal morals. I won't invest in several things, not because it would be unethical, but because I find the companies immoral. Or because I dislike the product or individual.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 1,666
Hey, if anyone has some insider information, I'd love to hear that stuff... lol.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,858
- Reaction score
- 2,220
Make friends with a politician willing to let you know how they’re trading.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,184
- Reaction score
- 1,826
Senate Stock Watcher - See What Senators are Trading
Updated Daily - See the stock trades US Senators are making as they are reported. Get notifications when new reports are uploaded. Get insight now!
senatestockwatcher.com
House Stock Watcher - See What Your Representative Is Trading
Updated Daily - See the stock trades US Representatives are making as they are reported. Get notifications when new reports are uploaded. Get insight now!
housestockwatcher.com
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,026
- Reaction score
- 23,767
Senate Stock Watcher - See What Senators are Trading
Updated Daily - See the stock trades US Senators are making as they are reported. Get notifications when new reports are uploaded. Get insight now!
House Stock Watcher - See What Your Representative Is Trading
Updated Daily - See the stock trades US Representatives are making as they are reported. Get notifications when new reports are uploaded. Get insight now!
What's the lag time between sales and reporting here?
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,184
- Reaction score
- 1,826
No clue. Came across these recently but haven't really had time to look into them yet. Let me know if you find out.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,026
- Reaction score
- 23,767
Poked around, it's not clear, just saying it's based on periodic reports Congressional Members have to file. For some of these reports, it's a couple weeks after the actual transaction.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,136
- Reaction score
- 8,194
Congressmen are exempt from insider trading laws. Seriously.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,026
- Reaction score
- 23,767
Does the STOCK Act just not have any legal teeth behind it?
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,136
- Reaction score
- 8,194
The stock act is pointless and unenforceable. Congressional rules limit investigations, which means that it would be hard to prosecute (e.g. why senator burr’s case was dropped when he was actively trading on his cell phone during a hearing). It’s pointless because it does nothing to stop a congressman from putting his assets in an LLC, and trading from that. After all, LLCs are people. They can also make lobbying money by calling someone affected and soliciting “campaign contributions” with a bit of the ole wink wink wink, “I’m not telling you to sell, but it’s what I would do if I owned X”.
Similar threads
