Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Free offer for all BMJ readers from Healthy Skepticism
- Peter R Mansfield (30 May 2003)
-
Unhealthy spin
- Jeremy R Lissamore (3 June 2003)
-
Response to article 'Unhealthy Spin'
- Margot James (4 June 2003)
-
Unhealthy spin by the BMJ?
- Maxine M Taylor (6 June 2003)
-
Ethical Health Communications
- Mr N Breakwell, Nancy Turett, Mark Deitch, and Jasmine Zidane (25 June 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Peter R Mansfield, Director Healthy Skepticism www.healthyskepticism.org 34 Methodist St, Willunga SA 5172 Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Healthy Skepticism thanks Bob Burton and Andy Rowell for the helpful publicity for our organisation given in their excellent overview of public relations techniques. However I would like to stress that whilst we are based in Australia we are an International organisation. We invite all BMJ readers, regardless of nationality, to join our free mailing list by visiting www.healthyskepticism.org We started in 1983 as the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing (MaLAM) but have recently changed our methods and name to become Healthy Skepticism.<1> Our aim is to improve health by reducing harm from misleading drug promotion. Our methods include research, education and advocacy. There is no such thing as a free lunch. We are honest about that. To remain independent our core funding is from subscriptions. Many of our Free Subscribers become motivated to support our work by upgrading to being Paid Subscribers for AUD $75 (approx Euro 41 or USD $49). Our Members are Paid Subscribers who support our aims. I would also like to mention that I am a different person from the British Dr Peter Mansfield who is famous for his position on vacinations.<2> 1. Mansfield PR, Lexchin J, Vitry A, Doecke CJ and Svensson, S. Drug advertising in medical journals. Lancet 2003 Mar 8; 361(9360)879. 2. Majeed A. Referral of Dr Peter Mansfield to the GMC BMJ 2001; 323: 356. Competing interests: If Healthy Skepticism gains more subscribers then our organisation might be able to pay me for my work. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jeremy R Lissamore, Consultant in Communicable Disease Control Kent Health Protection Unit, Preston Hall, Aylesford, Kent, ME20 7NJ
Send response to journal:
|
I consider the term "spin doctor" too flattering for those who seek to mislead or in some cases denigrate. I suggest the term "fan doctor", as in ".... hiting the fan", is more descriptive. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Margot James, Chairman The Shire Health Group, 3 Olaf Street, London W11 4BE
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Mr. Smith, Bob Burton and Andy Rowell present their arguments against the healthcare PR business with more bias than I have ever seen coming out of any of our clients in the pharmaceutical industry! Having worked with most pharmaceutical companies, many doctors, journalists and patient groups since 1986 on PR and related services, I would welcome the chance of responding to the points made in the article as follows: § Our client’s messages are not disguised. It is clear from all of our activity with external audiences including journalists who the company funding the work is and what interest they have in the market. § The journalists with whom we deal, whether representing the medical press or the lay media, are well informed as to our role and that of our client. They seek information from a variety of sources rarely, if ever, relying on us or the doctors with whom we are working for the totality of information required. § Rather than generating “upbeat reports of preliminary results of research…that raise unrealistic expectations of doctors and patients of medical ‘breakthroughs’ that never eventuate” our clients are at pains to provide proper information without overstating the benefits. If a product is over-hyped and then fails it reflects very badly on all concerned and is simply not worth the long-term damage to corporate reputation. § It is quite right that independent doctors and patient groups are involved in issues management. If a major news story breaks about a widely used treatment, patient’s become understandably concerned and it is quite appropriate that they hear the views of all well-informed stakeholders. Some issues thrust into the public domain, for example some of the pill scares, have been quite unfounded and have resulted in serious consequences for patients who have suddenly stopped their treatment as a result. Well-informed doctors with whom we work on behalf of our clients help in these circumstances. Unfortunately health is a political issue at the heart of government debates over taxation, financing and the role of the private sector in the delivery of public services. In this context I am afraid everyone ‘has an agenda’. If our clients want to sell more statins, better cancer treatments, antipsychotics with far fewer side effects to name but a few of the areas in which we work then I for one am proud to help them. Your readers need to understand that over the years various government agencies and some doctors who are considerably less informed than they should be have prevented patients from accessing these medications. I often wonder how many lives lost to heart disease during the nineties would have been saved had the main company in the field been less tightly regulated in their communication with patients. When the government finally agreed to widen funding for statins, the products had already been available for the best part of ten years. A shame for all those patients who needed them at the time and never received them. At least those members of the public who saw some of our work, so maligned by your article last week, will still be alive. Finally – although I welcome the chance for an open debate on these important issues, I am concerned that the fall out will make life even more difficult for patient groups who do a wonderful job for the most part and manage on a shoestring. Despite the financial pressures I have never come across one that would trade it’s independence for an injection of finance – they only agree to work with our clients when they believe what our clients are trying to achieve will benefit the patients they represent. Yours sincerely, Margot James
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Maxine M Taylor, Director, Corporate Affairs RG24
Send response to journal:
|
It seems that public relations companies are not the only ones that are experts at "third party techniques" to quote the first line of your article. I was surprised to see myself quoted in this piece for the following reasons: 1. Neither Bob Burton nor Andy Rowell ever contacted me for comment 2. The quote attributed to me appears to have been taken, in part, from a general article I wrote about best practice in crisis management over 18 months ago. (Clever of the journalists to work out that I still work for Lilly without checking!) 3. The words chosen to depict my view have been selectively edited from my original comment and put into an entirely different and unfavourable context. The BMJ has a reputation for being one of the best medical journals in the world. However, I now have reason to question the quality of its freelance journalism in a way I never thought I would. Surely this is sloppy journalism at its best? In response to the summary points of the piece, I do not agree with much of the assessment. Third parties will have a point of view - why think it would represent the same view as the industry's? In my experience, independent spokespeople are just that, and I include patient groups in that equation, having worked for the voluntary sector for 5 years prior to joining Lilly. No self-respecting patient group would ever allow itself to be the unedited voice of the pharmaceutical industry. Equally, if the industry were to withdraw funding from all patient groups, (which generally do proactively publicise the source of that funding), how would they replace that funding to support vital patient care and needs? Fundraising is a tough business - maybe the critics should have a go at it and find out for themselves. Yours in sorrow more than anger. Maxine Taylor, Director, Corporate Affairs, Lilly UK Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mr N Breakwell, Managing Director SW1Y 4SP, Nancy Turett, Mark Deitch, and Jasmine Zidane
Send response to journal:
|
Ethical Health Communications Edelman Health and BioScience Communications (the healthcare public relations and medical education and publishing companies of Edelman, respectively) would like to take this opportunity to present our perspectives on the role and need for ethical healthcare communications and industry sponsored continuing medical education. Those involved in healthcare communications and medical education have two distinct roles. The first is to ensure that there is access to clear, truthful and immediate information about health and healthcare. The second is to facilitate fully disclosed partnerships amongst all stakeholders within healthcare, including researchers, clinicians, policymakers, payers, patients and their families. All those involved in healthcare communications and education must take responsibility for being part of the solution and not exacerbating the problem of ‘entanglement’. To this end Edelman Health and BioScience Communications endorse complete transparency between those that employ our services and those to whom we communicate. Not only do we abide by all regulatory codes of practice at a national and international level, but we also enforce our own ethical standards relating to disclosure and fair balance. The entanglement between the healthcare profession and pharmaceutical industry reflects larger ethical issues that pharmaceutical companies face as corporate citizens. There is an unwritten social contract that entrusts pharmaceutical companies with the development of products to safeguard and advance the public health, with the corollary that successful companies will profit from their risk and their labour. In a market economy, private industry is usually better able to fund costly long-term, high- risk ventures such as drug discovery and development, with greater incentive to drive technical innovation and efficiency, than government. It also stands to reason that those with the greatest knowledge of a new compound and its therapeutic target will be the company, investigators and scientists who have done the developmental work in this field. As long as the tenets of transparency, disclosure and fair balance are adhered to, there is no reason to exclude industry or its research partners from playing an active role in health communications and medical education. Nancy Turett
Nigel Breakwell
Mark Deitch
Dr Jasmine Zidane
Competing interests: None declared |
|||