New Doctors Don't Want Drug Company Influence

We noted yesterday the wonderful decision by the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to immunize negligent drug companies from lawsuits.  It's a good thing, too, because this industry is often up to no good,

In the past, we have mentioned some of the insidious actions of pharmaceutical companies: false advertising, ensuring their staff does not leave a paper trail to be found during litigation and ghost writing medical journal articles.

Not everyone in the medical community is comfortable with the pharmaceutical industry having undue and often secret influence on doctors.   Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a story about a group of Harvard Medical Students who are pushing back against their professors who have received money from pharmaceutical companies and questioned the ethics of some of these relationships.   The following day Senator Charles Grassley, (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and longtime FDA critique, who is investigating this practice, asked companies to disclose their payments to the Harvard Medical School faculty.  Apparently, although some ethical rules are in place, research has shown not all the pharma/professor relations are always disclosed. 

Like student protesters in the 1960’s, but with a modern twist the American Medical Student Association launched the website www.PharmFree.org last year to express their thoughts on money in medicine.

AMSA promotes the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the current best evidence in clinical care.  Information used by physicians in making clinical decisions should be comprehensive, transparent in its methodology and results, and independent from institutions and individuals with a financial interest in physician prescribing.  Physicians should not seek education from industry marketing efforts, whether they are in the form of advertisements, sales pitches from representatives, or sponsored lectures by paid physicians.