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: 18652

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: Electronic Source

Silverman E
Non-Profits And Industry Money: Who Gets What
Pharmalot 2010 Sep 7
http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/09/non-profits-and-industry-money-who-gets-what/


Full text:

Last December, the Senate Finance Committee’s Chuck Grassley sent letters 33 medical advocay groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and American Academy of Family Physicians for details about the money they and their board members received from drug and device makers (background here).
The move came several months after Grassley and his staffers discovered that the National Alliance on Mental Illness received sizeable pharma donations while also conducting lobbying efforts with drug makers and pushing legislation that benefits these companies. Since then, NAMI has posted that sort of info on its web site (look here). But what about the others?
Well, The Chronicle of Philanthropy has done an update by checking in with the various organizations and found that the groups Grassley is investigating receive more than $100 million in aggregate each year from drug and device makers in the form of donations, advertising revenue, exhibit fees, corporate memberships, andsupport for continuing medical education.
However, the amount of disclosure varies. The paper writes that 14 offered info about corporate contributions, while 12 more provided only limited data. The remainder – including The American Dental Association, the American Medical Association and the American Society of Anesthesiologists – declined to say how they responded to Grassley and post very little or nothing on their web sites beyond names of corporate donors (see this and this).
“You have to preserve the confidentiality of donors and respect donors’ rights,” Paulette Maehara, president of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, tells the paper. “Donors do have rights regardless of what Senator Grassley might think.”
Then there’s the other point of view: “These patient-advocacy groups have kind of gotten a free pass,” says Howard Brody, director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch, adding that some drugmakers treat them like “an extension of the marketing department.” He suggests there has been less scrutiny of groups such as the American Cancer Society, because they seem like “God, mother, and apple pie.”

 

  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