Doctor's Receiving Kickbacks from Pharmaceutical Companies for Needless Prescriptions

reply to post by AshleyD


Thanks, Ashley.

Don't forget, however, that this all starts in med school.....www.abovetopsecret.com...



...a direct quote from the Stanford Daily.





Everyone knows it; everyone sees it. When are we going to say ENOUGH?

-Dev

reply to post by masqua


Thanks! I was thinking of posting but upon seeing the direction the thread had taken, I considered my thoughts no longer pertinent.

I have thought of making this thread many times myself. It's a very troublesome subject for me, as I admittedly despise the large pharm corporations, and not without cause. I'm not shy about saying so.

As a child, I remember being in the backseat of the car and listening to my parents conversation. They were laughing and talking about "well, I guess he got a free blender today. Doctor's will never have to buy small appliances again". Hahaha. I knew something was wrong with that, then.

But oh how things have changed. While on a doctor's visit a few years ago, I was in my little room, and I could tell it was "my turn" because I could hear him outside my door flipping through my chart.

One of the other doctors stopped by, and I heard him ask if was going to the Glaxco luncheon. My doctor said he didn't think so. The other doctor said laughing "well, you know we get a nice lunch and $1,000".

I was floored. My doctor then said he would try to go.

But, I do not blame the doctor's. I truely don't. Most of them have patient's best interest at heart and want to help. (Remember, I said "Most".)

But like every other huge corporation focused on money, drug companies do not have morality as a high checkpoint on their list of goals. They market medications that are not ready to be on the market (as evidenced by all the dying/ and otherwise messed up patients who took one of these drugs), and they conceal these facts from the doctors.

I'm thinking even the pharmacy reps who drag their little bags around through doctor's offices are even unware of what they're actually peddling.

Not unlike the lobbyists who buy and sell our government, these corporations have the clout and power to orchestrate much the same thing. It will eventually have to stop somewhere, but it won't until the FDA decides it will.

Just because a doctor goes to a luncheon and accepts a check, doesn't neccessarily mean he will then be inclined to prescribe an inappropriate medication.

However, my final thought is they do receive "kickbacks" (what else can you call it?).

And it needs to stop, but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Maybe this new video on the hypocrisy of pharmaceuticals will help:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by drew hempel

 

Alright, I watched the whole video, and I still don't see your point. Are you actually arguing that we return to an existence where it was common for mothers to die in childbirth, for the average lifespan to reach about 40, where infant mortality was a faand where development stagnated around the stone age?

During the Middle Ages, it seems 20% of women died in childbirth (currently, 11 in 100,000 women in America will die in childbirth, or 0.011%), and 5% of children died at birth, with another 10-12% dying in the first month for a total 15-17% infant mortality (again, these figures today in America are 47 out of 1000, or 4.7% of children under a year of age will die).

Middle Ages Stats

Current IM stats

Current Material Death Stats

I just don't see how you can argue with plain facts. Quality and quantity of life has drastically improved since our hunter-gatherer days.

I am currently the PACs Administrator for the Chickasaw Nation Dept of Health. In the past I've been a trauma tech, specials tech, surgical tech and began as a night tech in xray. So I've been right in the middle of a lot of cases over the years.
I honestly don't have much to say about the OP's premise. I will say that in hospitals it is minimal if at all. There are many restraints placed on providers that prevent those sorts of "Conflicts of Interest".
I agree with most of what VueZonyDostupa (BTW what does your screen name mean) said. It would horrible to return to the dark ages of medicine, which really we are just now climbing out of. The one thing I would like to point out is that a lot of those mortalities you speak of should have occurred.
Quality of life and the extension of live are nobel quests and for otherwise healthy humans should be provided to the best of aur ability. However, using those abilities to keep alive (to reproductive maturity)those that would otherwise pass on is a detrimental use of the technology. By doing so we are maintaining genes in the gene pool that would otherwise disappear w/in a few generations.
This is a subject that needs to be addressed by the AMA and other medical associations before it becomes a hazard to our evolutionary process.

Well it is ironic as the "health" of the U.S. -- an oil-based modernity -- is "dependent" on bombing Iraq back into the stone age - the U.N. documented over a million killed from the sanctions on Iraq (which imported 70% of its food) -- because Iraq could not rebuild its basic "health" necessities. Also the U.N. noted how Iraq had the best medical care in the middle east - called the "West Germany" of the middle east. But now Iraq is covered in depleted uranium -- uranium mined at Native American reservations where the cancer rates have sky rocketed. Still radiation is a very important tool for Western medicine.

reply to post by rleexray

Here's another video on the evils of synthetic chemicals as drugs pushed by science:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by AshleyD


Thank you for starting this interesting thread, AshleyD.

Speaking from the "inside" at a senior level in the device / technology area, I agree the problems you describe must be resolved.

However, I suggest that not all offerings of "support" are completely negative.

I believe support to doctors & other medical staff can be offered if you are extremely careful to ensure the following:

- None of your actions can ever pressure the doctor into inappropriate decision-making.....you must be extremely careful never to let that be part of what you do

- Your education oriented support must be directed to independently accredited, high-quality education & learning

- Your actions must be formally documented both within the Drs organisation (e.g. within the hospital or clinic at a senior level) & within your commercial business organisation

- Your actions must be directed at improving patient outcomes

One of the problems with the big pharma "bribes" is that it ruins this area for industry people who are genuinely trying to do the right thing, in addition to carrying out their day-to-day medical business activities.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 30-1-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by drew hempel

 

I wouldn't doubt it. You should have seen the uproar in all the genetics journals about a decade or so ago when the breast cancer genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) were successfully patented by the lab that found them. Nothing like that had ever happened, and few had thought anyone would actually issue a patent for a human gene! Now the ONLY company allowed to test for BRCA mutations (a common first step in breast cancer risk assessment) is that company who holds the patent.

Disgusting.

G'day VneZonyDostupa

I agree that whole genetic patent area is complex & worrisome.

However, I don't believe it's simply a "black & white" argument......I believe there are many important "shades of grey".

Here's an example:

A company in the genetic technology area is presently making a great deal of money from this gene patent business, which I guess most here would view as a negative.

However, that Co is investing a great deal of that money back into an extremely important area of medicine & achieving results wherein if they succeed, it could be an absolutely huge health breakthrough for millions of people.

So to my mind, that example alone shows this is not a "cut & dried" argument.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 29-1-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Well, yes and no.

No, it's not a cut and dry argument, you're right. The fact that they put money back into research is wonderful.

Yes, it is an awful event to have occured, as it set the precedent for other, less benevolent entities to patent human genes and create bottlenecks in human genomics.