Vassilas & Matthews (Psychiatric Bulletin, May 2006, 30, 189–191) reinforced the reasons that led me to totally change my approach to pharmaceutical sponsorship. Pharmaceutical companies may have a genuine interest in education, but should that allow them to influence prescribing? Research has shown that although they believe their own prescribing is unaffected, many doctors believe that their colleagues are influenced (Reference Halperin, Hutchison and BarrierHalperin et al, 2004). Vassilas & Matthews call for trusts to develop guidelines and this is essential. I believe we also need to take individual responsibility. In particular, we need to look at our education and how we fund it. We can all buy lunch and pens for ourselves, but realistically how many of us could attend big international symposia if not sponsored? Clearly that should not be the case. I have read suggestions that pharmaceutical companies with a real interest in education could contribute anonymously to a general fund for education without any payback. This is something to consider. For myself I have found I can access excellent local and online education within the scope of a National Health Service consultant budget and will continue not to see representatives of pharmaceutical companies or accept their gifts.