Your Doctor's Drug Problem

[Guest guest]

As a homeopath I have been taught not to allow others... i.e.

pharmaceutical companies to make the homeopathic remedies for my patients..

This became the issues that caused letigation for Hahnemann in France

during his day. He was attempting to avoid 1.) the wrong prescription for

the patient; 2.) the incorrect manufacture of the correct potency for the

patient; and of course, 3.) the chance for abuse by the pharmaceutical

industry to promote THEIR remedies over the one that is necessary for the

patients. Only the doctor knows what is good for each individual.. Going

so far as to make remedies from herbs and foods that are grown by the doctor

is truly and important aspect of applying the healing methods necessary for

the individual patient. Of course a pactitioner cannot grow everything that

they prescribe... but if you can do that you are the practitioner that is

" one up " on all of the others... You who are members of my practice and

those of you who utilize those of us at my clinic understand what I am

attempting to impart here.

----- Original Message -----

From: " Sheri Nakken " <vaccineinfo@...>

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/opinion/18RELM.html?th= & pagewanted=print & p

osition

>

> November 18, 2003

>

> Your Doctor's Drug Problem

>

> By ARNOLD S. RELMAN

>

> BOSTON The rising costs of prescription drugs are driving the current

> debate about Medicare reform. Yet Republicans and Democrats alike may be

> unaware

> of a primary reason for this inflation: doctors are taught about drugs by

> agents of the pharmaceutical industry, which works hard to persuade them

to

> select

> the newest and most expensive medications " even in the absence of

> scientific

> evidence that they are any better than older, less costly ones.

>

> Despite the increase in direct-to-consumer advertising, patients still

rely

> on their doctors to choose which prescription drugs, if any, they should

> take.

> But what few of them know is that often their doctors' judgment is

influenced

> by the companies that sell the drugs. Most medical practitioners nowadays

> learn which drugs to use, and how to use them, mainly from teachers and

> educational programs paid for by the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> To renew their licenses, doctors in almost all states are required to

enroll

> in continuing medical education programs, and these are now largely

> subsidized, directly or indirectly, by the pharmaceutical industry. There

> are official

> guidelines for keeping these programs free of commercial bias, but they

are

> voluntary. Most of these educational programs are presented by

> industry-friendly

> experts who are selected and paid by the companies selling the drugs being

> discussed, and most of their talks emphasize the medical benefits of those

> drugs.

> Some of this information is useful, but much of it is simply marketing

> disguised as education.

>

> Of course, the companies sponsoring continuing medical education programs

> deny that sales promotion is their intent. They say they merely want to

help

> " educate " doctors by giving financial and technical help to the

institutions

> offering the programs.

>

> To its shame, the medical educational establishment tolerates this state

of

> affairs. Medical schools, professional associations and hospitals that

offer

> continuing education programs accept grants from the pharmaceutical

> industry and

> frequently allow the industry to suggest topics and speakers and help with

> preparation of the programs. They are reluctant to do anything that would

> jeopardize the industry's support.

>

> As for the doctors attending these industry-sponsored educational

programs,

> they like the slick presentations, which often use industry-supplied

teaching

> materials. They also like the low or nonexistent fees, the free food, and

the

> numerous small gifts given out at the commercial exhibits that often

> accompany

> big education events. And naturally they are confident that their own

> independence is wholly unaffected by all of this â? " although surveys

> reveal that they

> are less sanguine about other doctors' ability to resist industry's

> blandishments.

>

> But the companies providing the support wouldn't pour money into education

> unless they were confident of a return on their investment. And there is

> evidence that industry-sponsored programs increase the writing of

> prescriptions for

> the sponsor's products.

>

> In this way, doctors are led to believe that new and expensive drugs are

much

> better than older and less costly generic drugs. Sometimes this is true,

but

> not nearly as often as the pharmaceutical industry wants doctors to think.

> That's why it spends so much money on helping with the " education " of

doctors.

>

> So it is not merely that the pharmaceutical industry is using doctors to

sell

> its products. Medical schools and other educational institutions are not

> teaching doctors how to use drugs wisely and conservatively. Until they

> insist

> that the pharmaceutical industry stick to its own business (which can

include

> advertising but not education), we are unlikely to get the help we need

> from our

> doctors in controlling runaway drug expenditures.

>

>

>

> Arnold S. Relman, professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School, is former

> editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.