It's not The New England Journal of Medicine, but it's a start. Word today from Gary Schweitzer's Health News Review Blog, passed along from the Croakley Blog, that the journal Emergency Medicine Australasia has decided to eliminate advertisements from drug companies. A brief excerpt from their editorial (full editorial available here):
Doctors need to stop being used as agents of the drug industry in the complex financial arrangement between drug companies and consumers. It is time to show leadership and make a stand, and medical journals have a critical role to play in this. At EMA we have therefore drawn a line in the sand, and have stopped all drug advertising forthwith. We invite other journals to show their support and follow suit, by declaring their hand and doing the same.
Now that's some writing that would make George Orwell proud!
--br
A plot that invests in doctor's pharmaceutical relationships by choosing a single line of products over another can benefit their practice; however, if they choose mainly due to these relationships despite of having available options proven to have better effects, then that's truly an issue.
ReplyDeleteHi "Health Care", sorry for the delay in publishing your comment. I've been on vacation, and since you sent your comment in 6 months after I posted, I'm assuming that you're forgiving of a one-week lapse.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm not completely sure I understand your point, particularly the first half. Are you placing a value judgement on the "plot" to "choose a single line of products over another", or not?
All's I can say is that manipulation of scientific findings in journals by corporate sponsors is almost never overt, and indeed journal editors and authors may not be aware that such a process is taking place. Researchers go to extreme lengths to eliminate bias from their experiments; shouldn't they do everything possible to to minimize the potential bias introduced by contributions from corporations? Wouldn't a journal accepting tens of thousands of dollars (or, in the case of the most famous journals, a lot more than that) be biased, even if unconsciously, in favor of those sponsors' products? I think the answer is an obvious "no", although the intellecutal justifications I have read and heard over the years pays homage to contortionism. Anyway, that's my two cents.
If you want to do further reading on the precise mechanisms by which the editorial process at clinical journals can be influenced, I recommend "The Truth About Drug Companies", written by the former Editor In Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell.
Hi "Health Care", sorry for the delay in publishing your comment. I've been on vacation, and since you sent your comment in 6 months after I posted, I'm assuming that you're forgiving of a one-week lapse.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm not completely sure I understand your point, particularly the first half. Are you placing a value judgement on the "plot" to "choose a single line of products over another", or not?
All's I can say is that manipulation of scientific findings in journals by corporate sponsors is almost never overt, and indeed journal editors and authors may not be aware that such a process is taking place. Researchers go to extreme lengths to eliminate bias from their experiments; shouldn't they do everything possible to to minimize the potential bias introduced by contributions from corporations? Wouldn't a journal accepting tens of thousands of dollars (or, in the case of the most famous journals, a lot more than that) be biased, even if unconsciously, in favor of those sponsors' products? I think the answer is an obvious "no", although the intellecutal justifications I have read and heard over the years pays homage to contortionism. Anyway, that's my two cents.
If you want to do further reading on the precise mechanisms by which the editorial process at clinical journals can be influenced, I recommend "The Truth About Drug Companies", written by the former Editor In Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell.
Woops, that's an obvious "yes" in the second graf.
ReplyDeleteBest, Billy
I also believe that doctors should be refrained from endorsing medicines and other health products.
ReplyDeletePost Free Ads Philippines
Chris, thanks for the thoughts. While I agree in general, and personally would never endorse a medical product as part of some promotional campaign or think its not especially becoming for a physician to get paid to be a drug pitchman, I'm a touch hesitant when I see the words "should be refrained". By whom? I don't think a legal remedy is the right path, but I'd gladly settle for the physician community to collectively frown on this kind of behavior. At the moment, we're not even close to that. Best, Billy
ReplyDelete