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: 8004

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: Journal Article

Coombes R.
Is killing the pain worth the risk?
BMJ 2007 Jan 27; 334:(7586):186
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7586/186


Abstract:

MPs staged a last ditch attempt to get an effective ban on the painkiller co-proxamol overturned last week. The bid was ultimately thwarted but it gave a valuable insight into how patients and doctors are handling the phased withdrawal of the once popular analgesic two years after the uncompromising decision was made.

Co-proxamol is a prescription only analgesic that combines paracetamol (325 mg) and dextropropoxyphene (32.5 mg). It has low side effects and is popular with patients with chronic pain. But it is also the second most frequent means of suicide with prescribed drugs in England and Wales, second only to tricyclic antidepressants. Concern about the number of such deaths was expressed in the BMJ as long ago as 1980.

In 2004 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency announced a phased withdrawal of the painkiller. A review by the agency found that around 300-400 people a year die as . . .

 

  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








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963