It’s not only gambling firms funding NHS addiction services – healthcare hypocrisy is rife

The government needs to act on its newfound wisdom on the betting industry and stop others with a potential conflict of interest, writes Ian Hamilton

‘Severing the link between the gambling industry and treatment is welcome but should never have been in place to begin with’ (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

At last, the NHS has cut its links with the gambling industry. The mental health director of the NHS, Claire Murdoch, has announced that it will stop taking cash from the gambling industry to fund specialist gambling addiction services.

In this rare example of the government actually listening to those affected by gambling, Murdoch said the decision had been made following complaints from patients and doctors about this funding arrangement. She accused the gambling industry of using “predatory tactics” that are part of the problem, not the solution.

There are an estimated 2.9 million people in the UK who are at risk of harm from gambling. Contrast this with the 668 individuals referred to gambling clinics between April and December last year, even though that was a 16 per cent rise on the previous year.

Severing the link between the industry and treatment is welcome but should never have been in place to begin with. Not least because the industry has used this funding to foster an image of compassion and concern, something that most critics view as hypocritical. The gambling industry made record profits of 14 billion pounds last year, of this a minute fraction of £1.2,m was allocated to fund gambling clinics. Whichever way you look at this the optics aren’t good.

“There is an inherent conflict of interest. We believe a new system of funding is needed that takes the gambling industry, and the possibility of influence, out of the equation,” said Dr Matthew Gaskell, the clinical lead for the gambling clinics in the north.

But it’s not just funding of clinics that must be decoupled from the gambling industry, research and education have to be resourced independently if those “predatory tactics” are to be neutralised. These tactics include influencing the research and educational agendas.

The gambling industry isn’t the only business that has the potential to meddle in research and education. The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries are known to be active funders too. It has become a little easier to detect this as most research and the journals they are published in mandate authors to declare any conflict of interest, which includes money received to investigate issues related to alcohol or in the case of pharmaceuticals new drugs and medicines.

When your career and livelihood is dependent on alcohol industry funding, which is then used to investigate problems associated with alcohol it isn’t difficult to imagine how independent inquiry could become compromised.

There is a long history of industries like tobacco, alcohol and now gambling using uncertainty in research to their advantage. Take the example of how harmful drinking is defined, or rather not defined – some researchers avoid definitions of harmful consumption of alcohol as they view any exposure is potentially harmful. Principled and evidence-based as this might be, this is a gift to the industry as it detracts attention from the fact that alcohol causes harm and more than just to a few of its consumers.

What all these industries have in common, and our current government supports, is the narrative of personal responsibility. In other words, it is down to the individual to make the right choices about how much they gamble or drink and to exercise their judgement and self-control in limiting that harm. But when you have industries that are reliant on a sizeable proportion of their customers using their products to excess it would be commercially counterproductive to engage in activity that sought to stop them from doing this.

There is no place for essential services such as gambling addiction clinics being funded by commercial interests. But that doesn’t go far enough – there is no place for any direct or proxy funding of research and education in relation to alcohol, gambling or medicines. The government needs to act on its newfound wisdom in relation to the gambling industry and extend its reach to other industries that could have a conflict of interests in areas they shouldn’t be involved in.

Ian Hamilton is a senior lecturer in addiction and mental health at the University of York