Thursday, 31 August 2017
Myanmar nak hapuskan Rohingya
Cubaan hapuskan legasi Rohingya
Myanmar didakwa
ratakan beratus-ratus perkampungan, masjid di Rakhine
NAYPYIDAW – Rakaman pemandangan Negeri Rakhine dari
udara menunjukkan banyak penempatan Rohingya diratakan, mencetuskan semula
tuduhan bahawa Myanmar memusnahkan kediaman dan melenyapkan sejarah etnik
minoriti Islam berkenaan.
Hampir 700,000 penduduk Rohingya meninggalkan Negeri
Rakhine, barat Myanmar dan berlindung di Bangladesh sejak serangan pemberontak
ke atas lebih 30 pos polis lewat tahun lalu mencetuskan operasi ketenteraan
penuh kejam.
Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu mengetuai kecaman
global terhadap tindakan keras tentera Myanmar, menyifatkannya sebagai
penghapusan etnik.
Aktivis-aktivis hak asasi manusia pula
berkata, kemusnahan sistematik beratus-ratus perkampungan, masjid dan harta
benda lain merupakan cubaan berkesan untuk memadamkan kaitan etnik Rohingya
dengan tanah air mereka.
Penduduk
minoriti Islam itu tidak diiktiraf sebagai sebuah kumpulan etnik minoriti di
Myanmar dan ditindas berdekad-dekad lamanya.
Malah,
banyak pihak bimbang bahawa operasi tentera Myanmar lewat tahun lalu itu
merupakan percubaan mengusir etnik Rohingya dari Myanmar untuk selama-lamanya.
Gambar-gambar
yang disiarkan di media sosial selepas lawatan diplomatik ke zon konflik di
Rakhine pada minggu lalu menyokong dakwaan tersebut.
Imej
menghantui fikiran yang disiarkan di akaun Twitter Duta Kesatuan Eropah ke
Myanmar, Kristian Schmidt itu menunjukkan wilayah yang rosak dengan tanah-tanah
diratakan.
Kampung-kampung
Rohingya yang dibakar semasa operasi tentera kelihatan diratakan jentolak,
tanpa saki-baki struktur mahupun pokok kayu.
“Penduduk
Rohingya terkejut melihat kampung-kampung mereka hangus,” kata Chris Lewa,
ketua badan bukan kerajaan Projek Arakan yang bertahun-tahun membantu etnik
Rohingya di Rakhine.
“Mereka
bimbang musim hujan yang bakal tiba akan melenyapkan sama sekali peninggalan
kehidupan masa lampau mereka,” tambahnya.
Pada tahun
lalu, Myanmar dan Bangladesh menanda tangani perjanjian penghantaran semula
pelarian Rohingya yang sepatutnya dilaksanakan pada Januari lepas.
Namun,
ramai pelarian Rohingya enggan pulang ke Negeri Rakhine tanpa jaminan bahawa
hak asasi dan keselamatan mereka dilindungi.
Pihak
berkuasa di Myanmar pula bertegas akan menyaring dengan ketat semua pelarian
Rohingya dan akan hanya menerima mereka yang disahkan sebagai penduduk Rakhine.
Pengkritik-pengkritik
perjanjian tersebut berkata, proses kontroversi itu berkemungkinan besar
mengakibatkan ramai pelarian Rohingya tidak dapat kembali ke tanah air mereka.
– Reuters
Why are the world Intolerably Quiet?
Children of Syria
Why are
the world doesnt care when they are killing children?
Why
are the world quiet?
Why
the they only care about animal death but doesnt care about human baby’s death?
.
.
Why are the world Terribly Quiet?
Why are
the world doesnt care when they are killing children?
Children of Syria
Why
are the world quiet?
Children of Syria
Why
the they only care about animal death but doesnt care about human baby’s death?
Why are the world Awfully Quiet
Why are
the world doesnt care when they are killing children?
Why
are the world quiet?
Why
the they only care about animal death but doesnt care about human baby’s death?
Why are the world immensely quiet?
Why are
the world enormously doesnt care when they are killing children?
Why
are the world offensively quiet?
Why
the they only care about animal death but doesnt care about human baby’s death?
Why are the world very quiet
Why are
the world incredibly doesnt care when they are killing children?
Why
are the world dreadfully quiet?
Why
the they only care about animal death but doesnt care about human baby’s death?
.
.
Why are the world extremely quiet
Why are
the world horribly doesnt care when they are killing children?
Why
are the world tremendously quiet?
Why
the they only care about animal death but doesnt care about human baby’s death?
.
.
Syarikat ubat belanjakan billion utk menarik anda
Syarikat ubat
belanjakan billion utk menarik anda
Drug Companies Spend Billions to Lure
Customers
Magazine ads for prescription drugs use vague claims instead of
clinical data to appeal to consumers. The advertisements rarely explain a
medication’s expected benefit, but instead make an emotional appeal. This gives
readers a perception that the drug has a broad benefit and that everyone who
uses the drug will get the benefit.
Researchers found a key danger is that most of these ads
“medicalize” common problems in the public’s mind. A runny nose becomes
allergic rhinitis. Indigestion becomes acid reflux or the worse-sounding GERD.
Direct-to-consumer advertisements are common in popular magazines,
particularly those aimed at women. They all share a similar structure: they
link the advertised product with its target condition and invite consumers to
share in their own health management.
The first consumer magazine advertisement for a prescription drug
was in Reader’s Digestin 1981. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
became concened about the potential effect of such advertisements on the
public. As a result, in 1983, the FDA ordered a moratorium on advertising while
it studied the subject and considered the regulatory options. They finally
concluded that “direct to the public prescription advertising was not in the
public interest.”
Then, despite this conclusion, they lifted the moratorium in 1985.
Direct-to-consumer advertisement opponents worry that these
advertisements will inappropriately increase patient demand for specific,
costly drugs. There is also a concern that this demand will have a negative
effect on medical practice and the physician-patient relationship.
Pharmaceutical companies spent $1.8 billion on direct-to-consumer
magazine advertisements for prescription drugs in 1999. At the same time,
pharmaceutical companies reduced the amount spent on direct-to-physician
advertising, which indicates a shift in their focus from physicians to
patients.
SOURCE:
Bunuh Budak cara terhormat
Bunuh Budak cara terhormat
(NaturalNews)
A proposed law on the verge of approval by the Belgium parliament would allow
children to decide for themselves whether they should be euthanized
("killed") by medical personnel. Currently, Belgian law limits
euthanasia to persons 18 and older, but with the rise of autistic children
thanks to biopesticides, GMOs and vaccines, nations are increasingly trying to
figure out what to do with all these children who have been permanently damaged
by the medical and biotech industries.
The
answer, of course, is to simply kill them. It's difficult to kill children off
under current law without being charged with murder, however. So this proposed
new law would allow doctors to decide whether children of any age (yes, even a
five-year-old) can, themselves, "consent" to being euthanized without
parental consent.
The
mercy killing of autistic children has already begun in the UK, by the way. As
the Daily
Mail reports: "Desperate mother and godmother 'killed severely autistic
boy, 14, by stabbing him multiple times in the chest' when they became
overwhelmed caring for him 24/7 after demanding he be removed from the hospital
and in put in their care."
Not
surprisingly, this "mercy killing" bill was introduced by the
socialist party, since socialists tend to hate humanity no matter what
country they live in. The proposed legislation calls for, "the law to be
extended to minors if they are capable of discernment or affected by an
incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate," reports
AFP.
That
story goes on to report, "Socialist Senator Philippe Mahoux, who helped
draft the proposed changes, said there had been cases of adolescents who 'had
the capacity to decide' their future."
Because,
of course, a six-year-old isn't old enough to drive a car or buy a beer, but
they can certainly consent to being killed by the state... especially if
they're already a burden on health care costs.
As
the law proponents claim, it "marks a turning point in the nation's
approach to the rights of young people, some of whom would be able to choose to
die if the law were to pass, even while still being legally barred from
driving, marrying, voting or drinking liquor until they turned 18,"
reports IBtimes.com
Alzheimer's patients to also face
euthanization under proposed law
But
wait, there's more! It's not just children who will be euthanized under this
new law, it's also scores of Alzheimer's patients.
"Parliamentarians
would also consider extended mercy-killing to people suffering from
Alzheimer's-type illnesses," said the socialist senator.
Euthanasia
is, of course, the most convenient way for any government to get rid of people
it doesn't want to care for. Instead of teaching the public how to prevent and
reverse Alzheimer's disease, the government simply passes a new law to murder
them all while calling it "compassionate medicine."
The
age of mass murder by government is upon us. It won't be long before such laws
spread to other nations and are expanded to people with "mental health
problems" or even cancer. While in theory the idea of euthanasia may have
merit in a strictly limited scope, the truth is that governments are now
jumping on the euthanasia bandwagon to provide attempted legal justification
for the mass murder of children and senior citizens whom they no longer wish to
support with health care expenditures. Save the government from bankruptcy!
Have grandma euthanized! (Right alongside little autistic Johnny, too...)
Governments,
after all, are ultimately political machines of death and destruction,
which explains why all the wars fought in the 20th century were started by
governments, not the People. War is simply another way to accomplish the mass
killing that the twisted, demented people at the top of every government truly
enjoy.
And
there's nothing more delicious to these power freaks than killing little
children. If you can take a five-year-old into a doctor's office and pump his
veins full of deadly chemicals while calling it a "mercy killing,"
it's almost erotic to these power-hungry control freaks. Too bad the BBC's
Jimmy Savile isn't still around, or he might even find something else to do
with the children's corpses afterward.
Sick?
You bet it is. We're talking about the state-sponsored murder of children here.
There's nothing polite about it. You can also bet this will become the new way
that governments dispose of autistic children and then claim rates of autism
are "going down" because not as many children have it anymore. (Yeah,
after they've all been euthanized.)
Governments,
you see, will even resort to the mass murder of children to protect the vaccine
industry. And what is the vaccine industry other than a child-killing
monstrosity to begin with? That's why the industry loves to run dangerous
vaccine experiments on little children, too. There's nothing quite as rewarding
to these vaccine pushers as seeing a high-IQ child turned into a drooling,
screaming, zombified autism case in the hours after receiving a vaccine
injection.
God
help us all. We are all being mass murdered by the fascist global state, and
most of the population is too dumbed-down to realize what's happening.
Doktor terus terusan dimomokkan syarikat ubat
Doktor terus terusan dimomokkan syarikat ubat
It begins
with some teasers. A pen, a calculator, a vanity bag, a dinner set and so on —
things that cost no more than Rs. 2,500. It is the response at the receiving
end that changes the game in the nexus between pharmaceutical companies and
doctors.
In the
second stage, the doctors opt either for cash or goods. Some of the most
popular gifts are home appliances — a mixer-grinder, a television or a
refrigerator.
The value
of the freebies climbs up when the potential of the doctor is high in promoting
the drugs or in prescribing investigations at the diagnostic laboratories.
There has
also been an instance in which a company set up a home theatre for a doctor. A
plasma television or a car for which monthly installments are paid by the
pharmaceutical company are common these days.
However,
these gifts have become passé as some doctors have switched to all-expense-paid
trips abroad. In fact, it is learnt from the medical community that the Asian
locations are not preferred for these foreign trips sponsored by medicine
manufacturers. Europe and the U.S. are the destinations in demand.
Attending
medical conferences with family in various locales is the in-thing. While the
conferences are sponsored events, many doctors get drug companies to sponsor
their entire trip. Tickets, stay and local tours are all arranged for in a
package. The doctor may only be attending the conference for half a day,
perhaps.
“Drugs for
diabetes, hypertension and chronic renal diseases are the fast-moving drugs and
in large volumes,” said a former Health Services doctor. These drugs face the
toughest competition in the market because of the large varieties available,
and a doctor can be a big help in pushing up the sale of a favourite.
A
cholesterol lowering generic drug Atorvastatin is believed to have nearly 150
brands. And the price ranges somewhere from Rs. 40 to Rs.150 for ten tablets of
10 mg each. Likewise, a gastritis drug Pantoprazole has about 250 or more brands
and may vary in cost from something over Rs. 20 to about Rs. 100.
Another
category of drugs that face tough competition is antibiotics. Cancer drugs and
psychotropic drugs are others that require long-term use, bringing more brands
and competition and price ranges.
However,
it is a fact that not all medical practitioners take the gifts distributed by
pharmaceutical companies. A chest specialist and a general medical practitioner
in the city suburb said most of the doctors in rural areas went for affordable
medicines. “We have to look at the patients in total. There might not be
compliance to the prescription if the patient cannot afford the medicines,” one
of them said.
However,
doctors in urban areas may not know their patients’ backgrounds and may prescribe
costly medicines for some who may not be able to afford them, thereby
indirectly serving the interests of the pharmaceutical companies.
For the
doctors who prove a little tough for the pharmaceutical companies to lure,
there are gifts like free subscriptions to costly academic journals. Some
doctors fall for it as they are not the only or the direct beneficiary as their
department will have some good journals. In some cases, where a doctor may be
running a clinic at home or in a small hospital, these journals help him or her
stay connected to the fast-changing medicine field.
The
pharmaceutical companies took a step back in doling out these gifts quite
openly as the norms of the Medical Council of India had become stricter, said a
medical representative. Under the scanner are the doctors as well as the drug
companies.
Notwithstanding
the strict code of conduct for doctors under the Medical Council of India’s
code of ethics, the freebies given to doctors are many and at many levels.
A doctor
who would prescribe 100 iron tonic bottles a month would definitely be given a
preferential treatment over a doctor who prescribed 50 bottles a month, said a
doctor who had long moved away from active practice.
“It is a
well known fact that most pharmaceutical companies are spending more money on
marketing activity than their research,” says Dr. K. V. Babu from Payyanur.
Such
activities by pharmaceutical or allied health sector companies definitely lead
to a situation where a section of doctors prescribes unwanted costly medicines
or investigations to meet the "target” of diagnostic laboratories and
pharma companies, he added.
Promotional
activity is nothing short of bribery, says Dr. Babu and it was these activities
that brought in the amendment in MCI regulations 2009.
It is more
difficult to manage doctors than a hospital, says a hospital administrator who
has control over two hospitals. The doctors are not happy if the hospital
decides to have its own drug policy. They insist on having their meetings with
medical representatives, said the administrator. The laboratories too offer
commissions if we send in more work to them, he added.
A doctor’s
association is not unidirectional, but multidirectional, says Dr. Jayaprakash
R. from Thiruvananthapuram. There are pharmaceutical companies, diagnostic
laboratories and the neighbouring medical stores.
Recounting
his own experience about ten years ago, Dr. Jayaprakash, an associate
professor, Paediatrician and Child Psychologist, SAT, Government Medical
College, Thiruvananthapurm, said that when he sent a child for an EEG and an
MRI to a diagnostic laboratory, an executive from the lab came home offering a
commission of Rs. 3,000 for an MRI costing Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 200 for each EEG
costing Rs. 600.
“They
offered to open an account in my name. Medical ethics bound us not to even
accept the prescription pad of the laboratory. My standard norm is to write in
my prescription pad to please conduct the test with maximum reduced rate for
the patient. The laboratories provide half of the cost of the diagnostic test
like a CT or MRI to the doctor,”said Dr. Jayaprakash.
The nexus
between medical stores and doctors becomes important for both to keep the
business and the practice roaring, said Dr. Jayaprakash, who has authored a
book on medical ethics in Malayalam.
Medical
ethics is never discussed in medical colleges. IMA does nothing to train
members in medical ethics and there are usually no discussions on this issue.
The
pharmaceutical companies sponsor their leading practitioner as specialty
faculty at conferences. The expert speakers at the meetings are those who are
the largest promoter of a particular company who has agreed to sponsor the
event. Even after the 2009 amendment to MCI code of ethics, these practices
continue discreetly, said Dr. Jayaprakash.
Hadiah Haram
Feds Warn Drugmakers: Gifts to Doctors May be Illegal
By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY
The Bush administration told doctors Tuesday essentially: Buy your
own golf balls, concert tickets and vacations because drugmakers who offer such
incentives risk running afoul of the law.
In a draft meant to offer guidance to the
industry, the Office of the Inspector General took aim at some common practices
and said they could lead to civil or criminal charges.
Suspect activities include:
- Paying doctors to act as consultants or researchers in
marketing efforts.
- Paying
pharmacies or doctors to switch patients from one drug to a competitor.
- Providing scholarships, grants for research or other
gifts with more than nominal value to doctors.
The guidance comes after years of concern about
some drug industry marketing practices. Critics say such tactics influence
doctors to prescribe certain drugs and lead to higher costs for consumers. The draft
lays out for the first time in one document what the government expects.
The draft — now up for 60 days of public comment
— says some nominal-cost gifts are OK but does not give specifics. Instead, it
says a voluntary ethics code adopted this summer by the Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers of America should be considered a "minimum
standard."
That code says sales reps can buy doctors meals
on occasion but only in conjunction with medical education. Golf balls or bags
emblazoned with drug company logos are not allowed. Neither are tickets to
entertainment events, cash payments or other incentives given for prescribing
products.
The draft guidance also says drug companies can
face charges for reporting average wholesale prices that differ substantially
from what is actually charged — and touting those prices in marketing.
That's because the government uses those prices
on the few drugs covered by Medicare. If the drugs are sold for less, doctors
can bill for the higher amount and keep the difference. It's a tactic
drugmakers use to lure doctors to their products, costing taxpayers $1
billion annually, the government estimates
.
Doktor sila henti ambil hadiah syarikat ubat
Doktor sila henti ambil
hadiah syarikat ubat
Doctors, please Stop Taking Pharma
Gifts
It is wrong for
physicians and their staff to accept trips, meals, or gifts from pharmaceutical
companies. Pro or con?
During
the past 10 to 20 years, there has been a growing intrusion of pharmaceutical
companies and medical device makers into the day-to-day practice of medicine.
Industry gifts—pads, pens, logo bags, and the like—have grown commonplace. In
many doctors’ offices, hospitals, and medical centers, the free lunch, courtesy
of industry sponsors, has turned into an accepted way of life. And these gifts
can also include dinners at expensive restaurants (to hear a lecture by a
physician also being compensated by industry) or free travel to meetings at
fancy resorts (to participate in a medical education event sponsored by
industry).
That
is not to say I don’t value our relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.
Indeed, we depend on our industry partners to carry the fruits of our research
to market. At the same time, data increasingly show that even small gifts
influence the drugs physicians prescribe. On a larger scale, physicians who
serve as paid consultants to industry are more likely to recommend the approval
of a drug or device to the FDA than those not receiving consulting fees.
In
2005, I appointed a faculty task force to develop a policy on how Stanford
should ensure that our relationships with industry are ethical and appropriate.
In October, 2006, we enacted a policy across the Stanford University Medical
Center campus, prohibiting our faculty members from accepting gifts of any
kind, however small, anywhere on the medical campus or at off-site facilities
where they may practice.
It
also bars industry sales and marketing representatives from wandering the
hallways of our two hospitals and our laboratories, and prevents companies from
directly paying for meals in connection with educational programs—once a fairly
common practice. It requires that those involved in the decision to buy
formulary drugs or clinical equipment disclose any related financial interests.
We
are also developing guidelines for physician participation in “speakers
bureaus,” which offer generous honoraria from companies for taking part in
presentations related to company products.
Since
our policy went into effect, many other academic medical centers have followed
suit. As we train the next generation of physicians under these new standards,
we will sow the seed for what could be a wholesale cultural change in the U.S.
medical profession.
CON: YES, BUT
WITH CONDITIONS
U.S.
physicians are committed to quality health care. It’s part of the oath they
take. So, despite what critics say, it’s insulting to suggest that doctors
would prescribe treatments based on who gave them a slice of pizza, a pen, or a
medical dictionary. What’s more, there are regulations and a comprehensive
industry ethics code to help make sure information about new treatments
provided by America’s pharmaceutical research companies is accurate and
well-substantiated.
Existing
federal law is very clear: Pharmaceutical research companies and their
technically trained representatives, including some health-care professionals,
must not give physicians anything of value in exchange for the doctors writing
prescriptions for their medicines. The companies must also ensure that
information they convey to physicians is consistent with pharmaceutical product
labeling approved by the Food & Drug Administration. The fact is, federal
and state authorities, including the FDA, the Justice Dept., and state
Attorneys General are closely monitoring for improper activities.
For
its part, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
sponsors ethical guidelines to keep communications between its member companies
and physicians focused on proper use of medicines and the needs of patients.
The PhRMA ethics code says all forms of entertainment are inappropriate and
only modest meals—such as sandwiches—should be provided when doctors meet with
pharmaceutical research companies. Additionally, our code says items given to
physicians should not exceed $100 in value and should be things, including
stethoscopes and medical dictionaries, that benefit patients or support a
medical practice.
In
the end, it’s clear pharmaceutical research companies have the most extensive
information about new medicines. After all, they devote 10 to 15 years and
spend nearly $1 billion to develop just one new medicine in a process that
generates thousands of pages of scientific data.
To
us, the evidence is compelling: Physicians meeting with well-trained company
representatives gain crucial knowledge about side-effect profiles and proper
use of medicines. And when doctors are given free pharmaceutical samples, they
receive valuable firsthand experience that helps them decide which medications
to prescribe. The simple fact is company representatives help physicians
provide effective patient care. And that often saves lives.
Opinions and conclusions expressed in the BusinessWeek.com
Debate Room do not necessarily reflect the views ofBusinessWeek, BusinessWeek.com, or The
McGraw-Hill Companies.
random
February 12, 2008 2:31 PM
"U.S. physicians are committed to
quality health care. It's part of the oath they take. So, despite what critics
say, it's insulting to suggest that doctors would prescribe treatments based on
who gave them a slice of pizza, a pen, or a medical dictionary."
It may be insulting, but
the truth is often unkind. One of the first things a marketer learns in
business school is that by giving people freebies, these people will develop a
positive response to your brand name and logo. In psychology, this concept is
known as emotional equilibrium. If I do something nice for you, you will want
to do something nice for me in return. It's an evolutionary drive present in
social mammals like us. It builds social standing and allows the community to
stay stable and orderly.
So
we can angrily demand to know "how dare someone accuse doctors of being
influenced by promotional freebies?!" but that doesn't negate the fact
that doctors are human and the rules of evolution and social interaction apply
to them too.
NISHIKANT
February 13, 2008
9:06 AM
A
good debate but with no solution. Doctors are human, too, and greed for these
freebies applies to them as to any one of us. Moral values are rising, so maybe
the conscience of the doctors will govern the issue. Pharma companies are there
to make a profit, so whatever it takes to lure doctors, they will do.
RXone
February 13, 2008
7:05 PM
To
those who support the con perspective, I must respectfully ask you to remove
the wool from your eyes. I have been in this industry for 20 years. I have seen
many instances where marketing trumped science, and physicians were influenced
to prescribe. PhRMA may sponsor ethical guidelines; however, they are left
mostly to the physicians and others being "detailed" to enforce.
There are many ethical physicians who remain true to their science roots. I
suspect this is the minority.
Nina Chamness-Aguirre
February 13, 2008 9:13 PM
The
medical boards of each state should include as part of their ethics statements
that doctors cannot accept any gifts or freebies of any kind from drug-company
or medical-device representatives. Access to information about drugs and
innovative machines should be available to doctors and the public at
conferences and in medical journals--but not through marketing or sales
campaigns.
longnt
February 14, 2008
5:46 AM
It
is not wrong or right for physicians to accept these freebies. It is their
actions after receiving gifts. Pharmaceutical companies, like ones in other
industries, have to advertise their products in the most effective way. Their
target is doctors, not ordinary people, who have no right to choice what drugs
to use. If we look at the percentage of their spending on advertisements, it
may be much lower than in other sectors. Imagine that a marketer visits a
doctor for whom time is money. He may refuse to accept. Do you want to spend
your precious time for nothing? The drug catalog dropped on his desk will surely
be thrown into the bin.
If
companies' products cannot sell, they will go bankrupt. No one will do research
to produce drugs to cure our diseases. All of us could die prematurely.
lee
February 14, 2008
6:39 AM
Pro,
con, that's the issue? The issue is how pharma makes nothing that works and
sucks the money out of people. Pharma, tobacco, alcohol, and sugary foods,
crap. All crap.
Dr. M Johnson
February 14, 2008
8:29 AM
If
the freebies didn't influence physicians, would intelligent, sophisticated
companies with access to the most advanced marketing research in the world
spend so much money on them, year after year after year?
If
the freebies don't influence physicians, why do pharma companies resist banning
them?
Greg Kelly
February 14, 2008
10:54 AM
The
bottom line is, are America's physicians to be trusted to do the right thing?
History shows the vast majority of doctors always put the interests of their
patients (and by extension their professional reputations) before any gift they
get from drug companies.
And
national polls consistently show that the vast majority of Americans (in the
90% range) trust doctors to give them unbiased advice. Let's leave it at that.
Greg Kelly
Editor
Physicians' Financial News
Editor
Physicians' Financial News
Robert Laughing
February 14, 2008 11:49 AM
Free?
Nothing from Big Pharma is "free." Everyone pays 10 times over for
these trinkets and baubles. They also need the money to ensure Congress permits
them every method of marketing and pricing abuse, and should their actions
become so uproariously outrageous, our government "fines" them a few
pieces of silver. And that just goes to Congress to spend, spend, spend. I'm
voting against every incumbent come November. It is the only way.
Roger McNamee
February 14, 2008
4:43 PM
Mr.
Kelly, editor of Physician's Financial News, claims, "History shows the
vast majority of doctors always put the interests of their patients...before
any gift they get from drug companies."
I
just searched the most likely databases of publications and found no data and
no historical work that demonstrate that the vast majority, a slim majority, or
any proportion of doctors always put the interests of their patients before
gifts from drug companies.
As
an editor, Mr. Kelly would not make a claim that is totally unsubstantiated.
Perhaps he could provide a citation for the claim that history shows it.
RXone
February 14, 2008
7:22 PM
I
agree with Greg Kelly to the extent that "the vast majority of doctors
always put the interests of their patients (and by extension their professional
reputations) before any gift they get from drug companies." The crux of
the issue as I see it is this: Physicians may prescribe a medication that is
indeed in the best interest of his/her patient from a medical perspective. I
believe it is incumbent upon physicians to be good stewards of our resources as
well. This is not to say they should prescribe medications with inferior
outcomes. They should simply be objective about reviewing the clinical trials,
by removing the bias introduced by PhRMA, and prescribe what is in the best
interest of the patient both medically and financially.
Back to the Caveman Days
February 14, 2008 9:54 PM
Wow,
so you are saying most doctors are greedy. I say some are but not the majority.
If you spent more time banning tobacco and liquor, the main health concerns for
the public, maybe you would not need all those 3-cent pens or $6 pizzas. Maybe
ban all computers--that's why the USA kids and adults are lazy. People like you
have no clue. People today including you and doctors live at "free will."
Do what you want to do to yourself and others, and as long as it is
legal--tough break. Sorry, you lose.
laurenpharm
February 18, 2008 3:09 PM
Mr.
Johnson from PhRMA states: "To us, the evidence is compelling: Physicians
meeting with well-trained company representatives gain crucial knowledge about
side-effect profiles and proper use of medicines." In all my years as a
hospital pharmacy supervisor or director, I don't recall being educated by the
drug rep on the side effects of the drugs they were marketing. The side effects
are downplayed, just as they are downplayed by the industry during clinical
trials and post-marketing periods. Just look at the kind of massive public
outcry that had to occur to get PhRMA and the FDA to issue suicidal ideation
warnings on children and antidepressants.
dadpatel
February 25, 2008 3:48 AM
Let's
not forget politicians and lobbyists while we are on the related matter. The
decisions politicians make with the same type of implied change in behavior has
more far-reaching effects than a doctor's writing an extra prescription for
Viagra.
oldalchemist
May 12, 2008 12:24 PM
In
the last several years while visiting several medical centers, I talked with
many pharma reps. None had any science background but held B.A.'s and MBA's in marketing
or business. These very pleasant folks could only repeat "co.line"
when I asked tech "trick" questions, especially about dominions of
related drugs or locus and ethnicity of clinical trials--forget the math. I am
the recipient of a recent implant about which I have grave doubts, especially
after interface with three company reps.
Millicent Blair
May 12, 2008 6:02 PM
I just gave a presentation at the university I attend. It was on
"Present Day Medicine." As part of the talk, I showed a DVD called Money
Talks and also one
called Side Effects.
It
was on this very subject, and in the film "pharma reps" showed and
talked about methods that were used to influence physicians to use the products
they were representing. Not all physicians know they are influenced (they do
need to find out all about the products represented). However, many of the drug
companies told them only part of the story. (The drug companies often locked
away reports of adverse affects of the new drugs.)
Often
the purpose of introducing a new drug was money alone--in order to be able to
charge more than other, older drugs that did the same thing, although often the
new one caused dangerous side effects that the older drug usually did not have.
All for financial
gain.
Thomas
May 19, 2008 8:05 PM
Insulting?
It's insulting that people of science wouldn't acknowledge the basic law of
business: pharma companies wouldn't dump millions of dollars into these
programs if they didn't work. The idea of doctors as heroic icons that are
immune to the concepts of social marketing is laughable. I should know, I'm
related to a doctor and that person is no better than any of us regular folk.
Sam Rainey
May 19, 2008 10:11 PM
Okay,
so let's ban other forms of marketing and promotional gifts for everyone, not
just doctors--no business meals, no trips to the Super Bowl for clients, etc.
Otherwise,
who are you to single out physicians? You have no right to regulate their
behavior in this way. It's a free country and physicians can act as they like.
regularreader
May 19, 2008 11:34
PM
We
are talking about business and with business there will be profit. Who demands
profit? Share holders. Who are share holders? The "public" (although
the percentage of people who participate in the stock market directly or
indirectly is another question).
Every
individual has the fundamental right to further his business using fair
business practices. A pharma sales rep is as good or as bad as any other
advertising channel. Because in the end, if the doctor cares about his
reputation, he will be careful to prescribe the medicine he thinks is most
effective, irrespective of how many sales reps called on him.
Sometimes
we, the general public, are not aware of what a doctor does before prescribing
a new medicine. Here are some of the things he or she often does:
1. Talks to his/her peers, his/her seniors, and other
personal/professional contacts.
2. Reads about it
3. Attends lectures (yes, paid for by the indsutry), symposiums, etc.
2. Reads about it
3. Attends lectures (yes, paid for by the indsutry), symposiums, etc.
So
you have a choice to either trust him or not. If you are not happy with the
prescription practices of your doctor, you are free to change. That is the
beauty of the system.
Then
there are also insurance companies and pharmacies that replace the prescribed
medicines with equally effective generics, reducing the costs to the consumer.
So if you see the current system as a whole, you will appreciate that it is
continously evolving to benefit the consumer.
daniel
May 20, 2008 6:29 AM
I
worked for Sanofi-Synthelabo {now Sanofi-Aventis} and Sandoz {generic firm of Novartis}
as a medical rep in South Africa. I hated having to bribe my way to get scripts
and orders by giving gifts and dispensing bonuses and cash backs. It is a use
and abuse system where the doctors flock to the latest company offering an
'incentive' and the pharma companies use questionable tactics to get the most
business from the doctors. The doctors and pharma both abuse each other for
what they want. There is no loyalty or ethics where big profits are concerned.
The
saddest thing of all is that the patient always loses out to the corrupt motive
for profit by both the doctor and big pharma. I am no longer in the industry
and I have come to despise it.
Jacob
May 22, 2008 10:14
AM
There
seems to be a common logical theme: If the lunches and trips and perks didn't
influence doctors, then why would Big Pharma spend millions a year on them? If
there were no ROI, then why would the money be spent? Further, if doctors
really cared about their patients and the general public, then wouldn't they
say, "Hey, these drugs are expensive the way it is, let alone with all the
extra expenses of trips and dinners, so please don't spend this extra money on
trying to bribe me, and just help my patients." But they don't, and
instead choose to accept perks and bill like crazy and then point their finger
at insurance companies for the raising cost of health care.
Blame it on others
May 22, 2008 2:06 PM
Surprise.
First we don't want to eat and live healthy. We want more and more
prescriptions. Now pharma companies want to take full advantage of your
laziness. Lift that fat ugly backside of yours, and start living healthy.
You
won't need a doctor, medicine, or pharma companies either.
pat
May 22, 2008 5:07 PM
Ban
all forms drug advertising on TV and nonmedical magazines. Ban drug rep visits
and lunches in doctors' offices. Pharma companies should be allowed to promote
their products in regional meetings. All speakers at the meetings should
disclose the grants they receive from the drug companies. If a drug rep treats
a doctor with a $100 dollar wine and dine, he can influence the doctor's
prescription habits.
KT
June 27, 2008 4:18
PM
I
wonder why we always expect our doctors to be the saints or priests. They are
merely trying to make a living like the rest of us. Ambroise Paré said, "I
dressed the wound, and God healed the patient." If our own bodies lose the
ability to heal from any injury, how can we recover from a major surgery even
with the best medicine?
Insider
June 30, 2008 10:02
PM
Just
ask Pfizer how much they will pay a doctor to talk to other doctors and
side-step the safety issues. Not the average, but the pay for the 10% of their
stable that does 90% of the talks. The kind of money they are willing to put in
their "experts" pockets to give presentations shows how corrupt the
system is.
IndustryInsider
July 3, 2008 8:51 AM
You
can't have it both ways, people. On the one hand, you love the pharmaceutical
industry for its innovation and ability to develop cures and prevention of
disease. All of which, by the way, costs billions of dollars in R&D. Yet,
nobody expects to have to pay for it. The price of pharmaceuticals is based on
the value the drug provides and by profit required to drive future innovation,
not the cost of goods (the cost to manufacture the pill). People don't
understand this concept. They think because a pill contains 10 cents of
ingredients, that the price for the prescription should be low. The reality is
that for every one drug that makes it to the pharmacy counter, there are 1,000
drugs that never even make it out of clinical trials. All of this costs money.
Consumers are paying for the price of development of that drug, and the
development of all future drugs that may or may not ever get past the test tube
phase of development. If a drug company is not allowed to generate profit to
put back into R&D, we may as well kiss this industry good bye. What is a
fair profit? That question could be asked of many industries (oil, consumer
electronics, furniture, etc.).
mockbadoc
July 16, 2008 1:02 AM
I
think that it is irresponsible and misleading to frame the question in this
way. Many physicians are asked to speak to groups about particular medications
or products, and are paid a fee for their time. This is hardly a
"gift." I myself have not, but I would not be resistant to giving a
lecture about a medication or procedure I believe in.
It
was this same sort of irresponsible alarmism that caused patients to eschew
Celebrex in favor of older and more dangerous medications, to their ultimate
detriment. This shameless, self-serving, and dangerous baiting of those who
depend on others to vet their medical information is the worst kind of sham
journalism, it is dangerous, and it must end. As far as I can tell, this
endless suspicion-mongering has never saved a single human life. There are
plenty of real stories to be told--how smoking cessation programs save lives,
how the new "evidence-based medicine" journalism rewards negative and
overblown side-effect reports more than actual scientific data--but they are
not much fun to write or to read.
Want
to practice medicine? Do it. I promise you it is not what you believe it to be.
Otherwise, let those of us who have taken an oath to help and not to harm do
our job in peace without the constant din of negativism and suspicion that has
infected our patients without cause or positive effect.
John R. Polito
July 29, 2008 9:07
AM
I
just read Pfizer's response to BusinessWeek's "Doctors Under the
Influence" article in which Pfizer asserts that the article "relies
on innuendo and distortion to support empty charges of lack of disclosure about
interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians," is
"odd and troubling," that there "is no failure of transparency
here, only a cynical attempt by your magazine to portray it as such....By
implying that any paid relationship with an expert is inappropriate, you betray
a fundamental lack of understanding of that process....Instead, your magazine
published a story reflecting a pronounced anti-industry, anti-physician bias.
Your readers deserve better."
First,
Jonathan Foulds, PhD, is not a physician. Yes, he has been involved in
cessation research but also chose to serve as a member of Pfizer's speakers'
bureau, as a paid sales agent for Pfizer. Pfizer knows that Professor Foulds
has written a number of online blogs supporting Chantix without advising
readers that Pfizer selected him to assist in marketing Chantix.
Pfizer
should not need to await federal legislation to demand total financial
transparency and disclosure by its paid agents when writing in support of its
products. If Pfizer isn't outraged by the non-disclosure in Professor Foulds'
Chantix blogs, it should be.
John R. Polito
Nicotine Cessation Educator
Ell
January 17, 2009
10:18 AM
I
was a pharmaceutical rep. Not only did these "hungry for freebies"
S.O.B.s accept the gifts, dinners, grants, trips, tickets, and everything else
they could get their greedy hands on, but they were rude and abusive to me as
well. Pathetic.
Ashton
April 12, 2009 11:14
PM
I
think doctors are wise enough to recognize the obvious reason a pharmaceutical
company's giving them health freebies or free stuff.
Gracie
June 28, 2009 6:19
AM
Health
care it shouldn't be a business. Physicians shouldn't be "selling"
pills to patients just because they have a nice dinner after or a relaxing
vacation in Hawaii paid by the "gealth" corporations. It's our health
and our lives. It's a simple and basic ethical behavior. If they want
additional money, just go out and work in Macy's for a salary and commission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)