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: 14957

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

Reed J.
Tell us about drug co links, say patients
6minutes.com 2009 Jan 19
http://web.archive.org/web/20101120030844/http://6minutes.com.au/articles/z1/view.asp?id=435212


Full text:

Most patients don’t realise their doctor may have received drug company hospitality or sponsorship, a survey of Australian general practices has shown.

Three out of four patients in Australia are unaware of any relationships their GP might have with pharmaceutical companies – but almost all patients believe their doctor should tell them.

The new MJA research (190:65-68) surveyed over 900 people in three Sydney general practices and found that patients were concerned about interactions between GPs and the pharmaceutical industry.

Almost half believed that their doctor was not swayed by potential bias, and over 80% believed that any competing interests such as cash incentives or sponsorship should be disclosed.

Many wanted to know information that could directly affect them, such as GP benefits for prescribing drugs or clinical trial involvement.

An admission of association would improve their confidence in doctors’ decisions, said most, preferring verbal over a written statement or signage.

The paper calls for greater transparency and scrutiny over doctor-pharmaceutical relationships.

Study author, oncologist Professor Martin Tattersall, told 6minutes that while the extra costs of disclosure time to consults needed to be costed, so did the interactions of doctors with pharmaceutical companies.

“We don’t know these figures in Australia but it may not be a trivial amount of time,” he said.

Professor Tattersall cited an example where doctors at a Cleveland clinic were required to disclose competing interests via a website.

“One could argue it could make it transparent, but there’s the question of who it is getting to. Something more direct such as verbal or written is likely to get the message across,” said Professor Tattersall to 6minutes.

 

  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








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909