Government consults on legislation to disclose industry payments to doctors
BMJ 2023; 382 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p2049 (Published 07 September 2023) Cite this as: BMJ 2023;382:p2049
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
I am currently preparing my response to this consultation.
Meantime, might I openly share some of my thoughts on this consultation:
[1] Yet again those in power do not seem to fully acknowledge/recognise the potential for harm when commercial interests [and all marketing strategies involved] are put ahead of patient interests. If you do a word search for the word ‘harm’ on the information provided for this 'open consultation', you will find the word harm mentioned only three times. Apart from mentioning the factual title of the Cumberlege Review the only other time the word 'harm' is mentioned in this Consultation is in this sentence: “We propose to define ‘commercially sensitive information’ as information whose disclosure the business thinks will significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates.”
[2] Healthcare should take the lead and not Industry.
[3] This consultation has excluded, from outset, the option of all information on payments from industry being recorded on one central, openly searchable register
[4] This “consultation” [quotes are necessary] confirms that the UK Government is determined to put commercial interests first. World leadingly so.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Government consults on legislation to disclose industry payments to doctors
Dear Editor,
Having carefully read this 'open consultation' I find that I share view of Roger Fisken, Chair of HealthSense, that this consultation has been "designed to fail".
This 'open consultation' omits a wide range of options. One can only assume that such omissions, deliberate or otherwise, may have followed 'higher' guidance if not direct approval?
This 'open consultation' fails to mention the long-standing principle 'primum non nocere' . Indeed, the only mention of harm in this 'open consultation' is about the harm to industry.
I have lived long enough to experience successive administrations issue 'consultations' such as this.
By definition, Science is apolitical and has no financial interests
This 'open consultation' has excluded the option for there to be statutory, open, single, easily searchable register of all competing financial interests for all time.
It is reasonable to ask, Dr Jekyll like, why so much effort is going into Hyding?
Competing interests: No competing interests