Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;333:1121-1122 (25 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.39037.695069.3A
I hope Fugh-Berman's talk is effective in prompting drug companies to cease their involvement in medical education.1 If so, stopping such talks could be the most cost effective way to improve health care because exposure to drug promotion correlates with suboptimal health care.2 That includes the subtle promotion in disguise that makes involvement in medical education profitable for drug companies.
The main barrier to progress is doctors' denial that we are often adversely influenced by drug promotion. This denial arises partly from ignorance of the evidence about drug promotion,3 4 partly from overconfidence,2 and partly from refusal to believe that evidence because it is seen as insulting our self esteem.5 We need to move from the illusion that being misled is unlikely or shameful to accepting that it is normal for humans to be vulnerable to misleading promotional techniques.5 There is no proved method for obtaining more good than harm from exposure to drug promotion1 so we should all follow Fugh-Berman's call to stop being lapdogs to the pharmaceutical industry.
Peter R Mansfield, director
1 Healthy Skepticism, 34 Methodist Street, Willunga, SA 5172, Australia peter@healthyskepticism.org
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+