Re: Breakup of Physician, Drug Company Relationship Could Improve Health Care, Cut Co
Don't you find it strange that a thread that started out with post regarding a scientific quantitative study published in a peer reviewed journal that is sponsored by the nation's second largest organization representing professional medical board certified specialists that basically proves that our profession not only adds very little value to patient's health but influences docs to spend resources on expensive drugs that could be spent else where so that we are also detrimental to the US Healthcare System, quickly degenerates to subject matter that means nothing to that subject?
Does anyone realize that this article as published with the tags "Ethics" and "Conflicts of Interest"?
One of the articles in the reference was from a Journal entitled "The Annals of Family Medicine".
"The Annals of Family Medicine is a new peer-reviewed research journal to meet the needs of scientists, practitioners, policymakers, and the patients and communities they serve."
Sponsoring Organizations
The Annals of Family Medicine is a collaborative effort of seven family medicine organizations:
American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM)
Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM)
Association of Departments of Family Medicine (ADFM)
Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD)
North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG)
College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC)
The paper
"The Company We Keep: Why Physicians Should Refuse to See Pharmaceutical Representatives
Whether physicians ought to interact with pharmaceutical sales representatives (reps) is a question worthy of careful ethical analysis. The issue presents a challenge to both professional integrity and time management. Empirical data suggest that interactions with pharmaceutical reps increase the chances that the physician will act contrary to duties owed to the patient. Ideally, a physician might both interact with reps and also do the research necessary to counteract the commercial bias in their messages. But a physician who actually did that research would, in turn, be devoting a good deal of time that might better be spent in other activities. The counterargument, that one is obligated to see representatives to obtain free samples to best serve one’s patients, can be shown in most practice settings not to be compelling. Physicians ought to refuse to visit with representatives as a matter of both professional integrity and sensible time management."
Received for publication March 4, 2004.
Revision received March 29, 2004.
Accepted for publication May 17, 2005.
© 2005 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.