corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 13585

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Editorial .
Medical ghosts
The Baltimore Sun 2008 Apr 20
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.doctors20apr20001519,0,7064207.story


Full text:

Our view: Merck scandal points to larger doctor-industry coziness

Doctors are expected to have nothing but their patients’ best interests at heart as they dispense treatment and advice. Companies that sell pharmaceuticals and medical equipment are driven by profits; they’re part of an almost $1 trillion-a-year global industry. The two groups rely on each other, but the symbiotic relationships that have developed between doctors and drugmakers present conflicts that can no longer be ignored.

The Journal of the American Medical Association revealed last week that the drug company Merck publicized research studies about its ill-fated drug Vioxx that were not written by the high-profile medical scientists whose names were attached to those studies. Merck disputes the charge of dishonesty, although the company acknowledges that it hired outside writers to draft reports that later carried prominent doctors’ names.

As reported in The Sun last week, insiders say this form of ghostwriting is widespread in medical circles. Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis, editor of JAMA and a former vice dean at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, said that as a faculty member, she was “approached many times” by companies wanting her name to appear on research she hadn’t conducted.

For too long, a cozy relationship has existed between the medical profession and various industries whose interest in promoting health is, by definition, secondary to their interest in selling products. Academic doctors so often accept industry funding to perform research, do consulting, attend meetings and sit on corporate boards that few eyebrows are raised at the inherent conflict of interest in such a state of affairs. But eyebrows should be raised, and a small number of prominent doctors now say they will no longer accept corporate funding of any kind. We hope this ripple turns into a tidal wave. The Merck controversy may end up being just what the doctor ordered to end this insidious practice.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








...to influence multinational corporations effectively, the efforts of governments will have to be complemented by others, notably the many voluntary organisations that have shown they can effectively represent society’s public-health interests…
A small group known as Healthy Skepticism; formerly the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing) has consistently and insistently drawn the attention of producers to promotional malpractice, calling for (and often securing) correction. These organisations [Healthy Skepticism, Médecins Sans Frontières and Health Action International] are small, but they are capable; they bear malice towards no one, and they are inscrutably honest. If industry is indeed persuaded to face up to its social responsibilities in the coming years it may well be because of these associations and others like them.
- Dukes MN. Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry. Lancet. 2002 Nov 23; 360(9346)1682-4.