Etcetera

Let's Talk The Hypocritical, Not The Hippocratic Oath When It Comes To Med Schools

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:24:40 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

To hear the medical schools talk about it, they are training doctors who will practice medicine with their patients' best health in mind. There are those who say one of the things many doctors learn early in their careers is that pharmaceutical companies can be quite helpful to them. What they'll find is that pharamaceutical company reps are a wondrous source of money, gifts and free drug samples. There is a group that believes many doctors learn these things right when they're learning to become doctors - at medical school. They also believe the first steps in correcting the situation has to be taken at the medical schools. According to the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), it's about time to take stock of just what the medical schools are doing about this situation. Which is what it did and the initial results are quite disturbing.

As Dr. Brian Hurley, AMSA president, sees it if a medical school takes steps to shield students from Big Pharma's marketing messages, they will "produce doctors who provide better care to patients." What Hurley and AMSA see as the major threat here is the pharmaceutical company boodle. AMSA asked 160 medicals schools for their conflict of interest policy statements. Then they reviewed whether the statements go far enough in insulating medical faculty and students from pharmaceutical companies. The report card AMSA released indicates there's a lot of work to do here.

The good news is that 21 medical schools rated well enough to earn an A or a B on the report card. This means the policies they have and the measures in place do a good job of keeping pharamaceutical companies from gaining undue influence over prospective doctors. The bad news is that more than 60 schools have no policies or measures in place and are not taking steps to develop them. Another 47 schools are taking minimal steps to develop such policies and measures. How important are these things? Dr. Hurley said they are "incredibly important to protect the educational experience students have at school and the quality of the education they're getting." Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen called the AMSA report card "a critical surveillance system." Wolfe has previously been critical of doctors prescribing pills for patients rather than work out drug-free course of action to deal with injury or disease. The AMSA report card follows the April release of a report (pdf doc) from the American Association of Medical Colleges calling for an end of pharmaceutical industry gifts to academic medical centers.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, medicine, drugs, med school, conflict of interest, free drug samples (all tags)

This story: 19 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
2

and while I'm bitching...

gerrymander.

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

What kind of moron  -- I'm looking at you, Dr. Brian Hurley -- writes an article decrying "chronic medical drug use" which includes this:

Medication use for chronic problems was seen in all demographic groups:

_ Almost two-thirds of women 20 and older.

Really. Two-thirds of women at sexual maturity use drugs for "chronic problems"? What possible condition could that many women have which would require regular drug use? Oh, right -- ovulation. This jackass is complaining about birth control pills. Should I be expecting a follow-up article which complains about women wearing shoes and working away from the kitchen?

3

^ 2

Re: and while I'm bitching...

joshv.

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:26:11 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

From a health perspective, a woman is better off not taking birth control for 30 years of her life.  Just read the list of possible side effects.  If a woman can find other means of contraception that work for her, she probably should.

6

^ 3

Re: and while I'm bitching...

ivyafire.

Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:53:30 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

AMEN, Josh.

My generation is all effed up from hormonal birth control.  The same docs who balk at prescribing thyroid hormones that come from pigs are all too happy to prescribe estrogen made from horse urine.  Why?  Because a pharmaceutical company who pays for lots of goodies tells them to.

If you ask your doctor why you are prescribed a particular medication, and he is honest with you, it is usually because it's the one his rep gave him samples of.  If you really believe the flavor of the month is an improvement, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.  

If you know someone in the business, ask them how they get credit for sales.  Here's the deal.  They hand out prescription pads with numbers on them that identify which rep handed out that pad, so when the doc prescribes the 'right' meds, that rep gets the credit.  That's how the pharmaceutical companies know which shills are doing their jobs and which marketing methods are working.

Medical schools should not be allowed to take money from pharmaceutical companies at all.  It's a complete conflict of interest and it has allowed pharmaceutical companies to profit unfairly for far too long.   One of my particular pet peeves is Synthroid, which is erroneously believed to be superior to natural thyroid hormones by most mainstream endocrinologists, yet many patients, such as myself, after years of being sick and miserable, were forced to seek out naturopaths or homeopaths to find relief.  Some people even resort to ordering medicine from overseas pharmacies rather than suffer the indignity of hearing yet another physician tell them they're imagining the changes in their body and should seek psychological counseling.     Our stories are written off as anecdotal, yet for thousands of us, the internet and our exchange of information literally saved our lives when modern medicine failed us.

 Some of us had unnecessary uterine ablations, hysterectomies, gastric bypasses, psychiatric meds prescribed, diet pills prescribed, blood pressure and heart problems, vision problems, skin problems,  were misdiagnosed with  bipolar disorder, fibromyalgia, menopause and various other disorders, yet for most of us all of our symptoms went away with proper thyroid treatment.  Of course, since it's just us recording our stories, it isn't scientific and it doesn't count for anything,  because doctors know everything.   But we saved ourselves, and while we can't possibly prove anything in court, morally, they are a bunch of evil sons of bitches who nearly killed us with their medical malpractice.    Because of this experience, I have a hard time believing anything a doctor tells me without researching it myself to make sure he didn't miss something.  You could say I have trust issues.

I blame pharmaceutical companies funding medical schools for this failure, and I blame supposedly educated men and women for being so gullible, foolish, and greedy they would let their patients suffer and die before admitting they made a mistake.  One thing I won't ever do again  is give my power away to some jackass just because he has an MD after his  name.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

7

^ 6

Re: and while I'm bitching...

ivyafire.

Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:01:37 PM EST

none

Sorry, left out this sentence somehow.

Abbott Labs' aggressive marketing has convinced doctors that Synthroid is superior to natural thyroid hormones, but patients in my position have found that many of our persistent symptoms went away once we switched from Synthroid to natural thyroid.  

testimonies
patient ratings go here and type in synthroid

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

8

^ 7

Re: and while I'm bitching...

ivyafire.

Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:07:18 PM EST

none

effed up my links, let's try that again

testimonies and background
type in synthroid for patient ratings

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

9

^ 6

Re: and while I'm bitching...

skeeter1.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:44:35 PM EST

none

Ivyafire--

You hit the nail on the head with that post.  What more can I say?  

--skeeter

there's only one way to find out...

10

^ 9

Re: and while I'm bitching...

ivyafire.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:19:35 PM EST

none

Actually, there's a lot more to say, but eventually it just degenerates into incoherent ranting and I start to froth at the mouth. ;)   It's hard to say what pisses me off more, organized religion or modern medicine.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

11

^ 10

Re: and while I'm bitching...

Lou.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:49:26 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

It's hard to say what pisses me off more, organized religion or modern medicine.

Ye cats...faith healing must really send you around the twist.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

12

^ 11

Re: and while I'm bitching...

ivyafire.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:35:12 PM EST

none

Ah, yes.  It's hard to tell who's more incoherent at that point, me, or the people speaking in tongues. ;)

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

13

^ 3

Re: and while I'm bitching...

gerrymander.

Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:26:13 AM EST

none

From a health perspective, a woman is better off not taking birth control for 30 years of her life.

One can recognize those effects as problematic without needing to construct some nationwide dastardly conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies and doctors. As many younger women take birth control as do because they have a specific need: the need to remain unpregnant while being sexually active. Those women seek out birth control on their own. Some-to-many of them might gloss over the details of side effects, which doctors may or may not adequately inform them about. But I expect they're pretty damned certain to be aware of the potential side effect of using other, alternate contraceptive means: a screeching 7-pound bowling ball pushed through their cervix.

While we're on the subject, one of the most recalcitrant segments of the smoking population is that same female demographic. Do you think -- still -- that the eeevil tobacco companies are only to blame for producing a product which, among far more harmful side effects, functions as an appetite suppressant? Or could personal choice enter into the equation somehow?

15

^ 13

Re: and while I'm bitching...

joshv.

Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:55:23 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

"One can recognize those effects as problematic without needing to construct some nationwide dastardly conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies and doctors"

I guess I am missing where anyone is invoking a "nationwide dastardly conspiracy".  It is a well known fact that pharmaceutical companies attempt to influence the prescription patterns of doctors.  I know this personally.  One of my clients pays me to write software that allows pharmaceutical companies to analyze prescription patterns, right down to the individual doctor.   I find it not at all surprising that these sorts of activities extend into the medical school.  No need to invoke conspiracy.

As for birth control.  I'd rather have doctors help woman attempt to find non-pharmaceutical solutions if appropriate.  Prescribing a drug your patient takes every day of their life, for the next 30 years, should really be looked upon as a last resort.  If the patient opts for birth control, I'd rather the doctor prescribe a drug that has a long history of use - at least with these drugs the side effects are well categorized and understood.  But these days doctors are probably more likely to be prescribing newer drugs with a much shorter history on the market.  Sure, they have been studied and declared "safe", but we frequently encounter longer term and or infrequent side effects only once the drugs are on the market.  If the new drugs address a problem the patient was having with the older drugs, then that risk might be appropriate, but all too often they are just prescribed because they are new, and the doctor had some samples.

17

^ 15

Re: and while I'm bitching...

gerrymander.

Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM EST

none

It is a well known fact that pharmaceutical companies attempt to influence the prescription patterns of doctors.

I don't deny that. But Hurley's objection is to women of that age having prescriptions at all, not just the prescribing of newer drugs -- and the desire for contraceptive drugs is driven by individual women making choices, not by some nefarious plot.

5

Not bitchin', just sayin'

skeeter1.

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:30:57 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

In my brief time on this planet (55yrs) and in this country (USA), it seems that people have come to expect to go to the doctor and get a prescription for SOMETHING.  I've had my share as well.  Antibiotics and chemotherapy that may have kept me alive, and some god-awful nasty ones, like Effexor that I'd rather forget about.  For the most part, I seem to do better self-medicating with some chicken soup and some booze.  No expensive Doctor visits, no expensive pharmaceuticals.  I sure wish I could have legally gotten some weed when I was undergoing cancer treatment, though.  The US medical system is completely fucked-up.

[/end of rant]

there's only one way to find out...

1

more leftish bullshit

gerrymander.

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:03:57 AM EST

none

As Dr. Brian Hurley, AMSA president, sees it if a medical school takes steps to shield students from Big Pharma's marketing messages, they will "produce doctors who provide better care to patients."

I wonder how Dr. Hurley presumes this message fits at all with the stated ASMA goal of "improving health care and healthcare delivery to all people"? Because last I checked, "all people" includes poor people -- the exact same poor people who often only receive new drugs thanks to the free giveaways of drug companies' marketing departments.

I'm not going to other hard-sell tactics drug companies might use to advance sales, but copious free samples are a benefit, not a detriment, to overall health care.

4

^ 1

I know you're just bitchin' but...

thefadd.

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:34:00 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

"improving health care and healthcare delivery to all people"

I heartily doubt the ASMA lives by such a laudatory goal in even half of its activities. If the poor are depending on "free samples" I think we've fallen on rather hard times.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

14

^ 1

Re: more leftish bullshit

postillion.

Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:44:44 PM EST

none

Copious free samples can be both a benefit and a detriment.  Like so much else in the contemporary world, it's not so simple.

On the one hand, when there's a drug where it is the sole drug that can be helpful to a person, it can be a benefit to poor patients.  I have a good friend on the verge of a heart attack, and he's received many drugs as free samples from his doctor who is sympathetic to the fact that my friend is a freelance editor without health insurance.

On the other hand, free drug samples means that doctors don't spend as much time considering the cheaper generic alternative drugs.

And lastly, I also think that my friend, if he didn't have free drug samples, would have no other option than taking control over his health by cutting down on his intake of fatty foods and actually getting exercise.  

We live in a society where everyone thinks that every single health issue in our lives can be cured by drugs.  There are many diseases that are outside our control, and I don't make light of those debilitating and life-threatening diseases.  However, there are also diseases and health conditions brought on by our lifestyles, and for the health of the nation, it would be better if everyone realized more can be done by getting exercise, eating fatty food in moderation, drinking alcohol in moderation, drinking enough water, and quitting smoking (and I say this as someone who started smoking as a teenager and still haven't managed to quit).

16

^ 1

Re: more leftish bullshit

Lou.

Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:11:30 AM EST

none

It's my understanding that many poor people use the emergency room as a form of health care.  It's been a long time since I've been to the ER so I don't know...do they hand out a lot of free meds provided by pharmacy reps?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

18

^ 16

Re: more leftish bullshit

skeeter1.

Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:04:19 PM EST

none

"It's my understanding that many poor people use the emergency room as a form of health care."

When I was working in hospitals (I did for 26 years), I remember an elderly woman coming in to the ER in tears that she couldn't afford her medication.  They handed her two big handfuls of meds (topical ointments).  I doubt they would hand out narcotics or some such thing.

Here in Ohio (I don't know about elsewhere), if you get to an ER, they're required by law to treat you, whether you can afford it or not.  It's called "patient care assurance".  Small wonder that the ER's are overflowing.  What a wonderfully fucked-up medical system we have in the US.

there's only one way to find out...

19

From The Top On Down

thefadd.

Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:48:11 PM EST

none

Yeah, there's no conflict of interest in the medical field. None at all. Well, only at like Harvard and the NIH, I mean what do you expect really? $1.6 million buys some nice, I mean, helps a lot of kids, cough, cough.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This story: 19 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment