Re: Relationship between the Drug Industry and Doctors
While Dr Prabhu has some interesting points, I wondered whether he
would consider these answers to his suggestions.
1. Overseas trip abroad should not be sponsored by the drug company.
If the conference is sponsored by a drug company, there is clearly no
reason why they should not pay for doctors to attend. It is a simple
practicality.
2. Doctors eating out for social purpose should not be sponsored by
the drug company. This must be a desciplinary offence.
"Disciplinary offence". For a person who is so senior, you have some
strange ideas about what constitutes a disciplinary offence. All my
colleagues are busy doctors and have limited time to attend 7 meetings a
year. We do all enjoy the education provided in a relaxed atmosphere were
we can talk shop and the drug rep can educate us. I am sure you will
appreciate that education is excellent for doctors. I learn most of my
pharmacology from Drug reps at dinners. In addition, after 82 hours and
lack of food from the NHS, drug reps come as a welcome perk.
Education in drug pharmacology enables me to compare and contrast
medications to be prescribed. Sure you cannot consider an opportunity for
education - a disciplinary offence.
I think people forget that the best education is done in a relaxed
atmosphere, with ample food, friends and discussion. Drug companies are
educational to all doctors. I think this point has been missed.
3. There must be clearly defined and resoanable expenditure paid by
the drug company in any sponsored meeting. Who ever organises the meeting
should declare it.
"Reasonable expenditure" has a definition in business. Drug companies
are all businesses and their balance sheet will certainly will not allow
over generosity in finances. I would have thought you would be aware of
the first rule of accounts and business :) which is "thou shall spend the
least amount of capital to obtain the most gains"
4. Any doctor who works in the NHS and gives lecutre in a drug
company sponsored meeting should declare it in his apprasial folder.
Appraisal folder? Would this be so that doctors who support other
drug companies can have access to it during revalidation. Judgemental
decisions from the powers that be is always worrying. Are we going to
start operating a Big Brother like approach eg Dr Richard Smith gave a
lecture and Pfizer provided the sandwiches - lets place a big cross next
to his name! The suggestion you make is a breach of human rights for any
doctor who should have the freedom of choice - to lecture anywhere he
wishes without judgemental interference from those who are supposedly
politically correct.
5. Presribing practice of such a doctor should be compared with the
national guidleines.
National Guidelines? I am sure you learned many years ago that human
beings are genetically different. Each person is an individual. Drug
therapy should be catered to the patient seen and treated eg someone may
be allergic to Aspirin and the doctor may need to prescribe Clopidogrel.
National Guidelines are merely suggestions for management. Doctors treat
the patient and tailor treatment to the symptoms and history. Individual
treatment is important as you well know. Comparing prescribing habits for
doctors to national guidelines would provide a inaccuate statistical
analysis due to a simple point - most doctors, GPs etc treat the patient
with drugs applicable to their condition and state no matter what the
national guidelines stipulate. You cannot suggest that doctors freedom to
prescribe should be interferred in this way.
6. Funding for personal development should be increased
Interesting point. Ofcourse it depends on what your definition of
personal development is.
For the record, none of my colleagues or myself are swayed by drug
companies. We all prescribe for the patient in front of us. We all use
drug companies as an adjunct to our education. I find drug reps very
useful in finding me papers, answering my questions etc.
We were taught to treat the patient not obey drug companies. I
believe most doctors are of this quality. I therefore feel that
restrictions by monitoring their method of practising suggested by Dr
Prabhu is counterproductive and a breach of human rights for many honest
and hard working doctors. Doctors are free spirits by nature. Each of us
have our own ideas about management. Doctors should be given the freedom
to develop management strategies without being dictated to by the powers
that be. There is also nothing wrong in drug companies providing the
education that is not in the British National Formulary.
Rapid Response:
Re: Relationship between the Drug Industry and Doctors
While Dr Prabhu has some interesting points, I wondered whether he
would consider these answers to his suggestions.
1. Overseas trip abroad should not be sponsored by the drug company.
If the conference is sponsored by a drug company, there is clearly no
reason why they should not pay for doctors to attend. It is a simple
practicality.
2. Doctors eating out for social purpose should not be sponsored by
the drug company. This must be a desciplinary offence.
"Disciplinary offence". For a person who is so senior, you have some
strange ideas about what constitutes a disciplinary offence. All my
colleagues are busy doctors and have limited time to attend 7 meetings a
year. We do all enjoy the education provided in a relaxed atmosphere were
we can talk shop and the drug rep can educate us. I am sure you will
appreciate that education is excellent for doctors. I learn most of my
pharmacology from Drug reps at dinners. In addition, after 82 hours and
lack of food from the NHS, drug reps come as a welcome perk.
Education in drug pharmacology enables me to compare and contrast
medications to be prescribed. Sure you cannot consider an opportunity for
education - a disciplinary offence.
I think people forget that the best education is done in a relaxed
atmosphere, with ample food, friends and discussion. Drug companies are
educational to all doctors. I think this point has been missed.
3. There must be clearly defined and resoanable expenditure paid by
the drug company in any sponsored meeting. Who ever organises the meeting
should declare it.
"Reasonable expenditure" has a definition in business. Drug companies
are all businesses and their balance sheet will certainly will not allow
over generosity in finances. I would have thought you would be aware of
the first rule of accounts and business :) which is "thou shall spend the
least amount of capital to obtain the most gains"
4. Any doctor who works in the NHS and gives lecutre in a drug
company sponsored meeting should declare it in his apprasial folder.
Appraisal folder? Would this be so that doctors who support other
drug companies can have access to it during revalidation. Judgemental
decisions from the powers that be is always worrying. Are we going to
start operating a Big Brother like approach eg Dr Richard Smith gave a
lecture and Pfizer provided the sandwiches - lets place a big cross next
to his name! The suggestion you make is a breach of human rights for any
doctor who should have the freedom of choice - to lecture anywhere he
wishes without judgemental interference from those who are supposedly
politically correct.
5. Presribing practice of such a doctor should be compared with the
national guidleines.
National Guidelines? I am sure you learned many years ago that human
beings are genetically different. Each person is an individual. Drug
therapy should be catered to the patient seen and treated eg someone may
be allergic to Aspirin and the doctor may need to prescribe Clopidogrel.
National Guidelines are merely suggestions for management. Doctors treat
the patient and tailor treatment to the symptoms and history. Individual
treatment is important as you well know. Comparing prescribing habits for
doctors to national guidelines would provide a inaccuate statistical
analysis due to a simple point - most doctors, GPs etc treat the patient
with drugs applicable to their condition and state no matter what the
national guidelines stipulate. You cannot suggest that doctors freedom to
prescribe should be interferred in this way.
6. Funding for personal development should be increased
Interesting point. Ofcourse it depends on what your definition of
personal development is.
For the record, none of my colleagues or myself are swayed by drug
companies. We all prescribe for the patient in front of us. We all use
drug companies as an adjunct to our education. I find drug reps very
useful in finding me papers, answering my questions etc.
We were taught to treat the patient not obey drug companies. I
believe most doctors are of this quality. I therefore feel that
restrictions by monitoring their method of practising suggested by Dr
Prabhu is counterproductive and a breach of human rights for many honest
and hard working doctors. Doctors are free spirits by nature. Each of us
have our own ideas about management. Doctors should be given the freedom
to develop management strategies without being dictated to by the powers
that be. There is also nothing wrong in drug companies providing the
education that is not in the British National Formulary.
Kind Regards
Dr Rita Pal
Editor
www.nhs-exposed.com
NHS Exposed
The Truth Behind the White Coat
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests