Call your doctor to see if “Crapocilen” is right for you!
What’s wrong with this picture? We’ve heard this kind of message hundreds of times as the pharmaceutical industry attempts to peddle its product on a gullible public. Okay, your ass itches. You’re watching your favorite television program and then there’s the ad for the miracle cure for ass itching. These ads generally have some fairly smart person giving a personal account of his or her suffering or a person supposed to be a doctor, seldom a white male, gently advising the patient or the television audience that if he or she exhibits any symptoms, then “Crapocilen” might be just the right drug to save the day. Then they deliver the pitch, “If your ass itches, talk to your doctor. Ask your doctor if “Crapocilen is right for you!” Oh boy, the cure. Wait, then comes the disclaimer. Using “Crapocilen” may have certain side effects. Patients may experience constipation, diarrhea, bloating, headaches, indigestion, lack of sexual desire, or depression. If you exhibit any of these symptoms, stop using “Crapocilen” immediately and call your doctor. If you have thoughts of suicide or committing mass murder, stop using “Crapocilen” and call 911 immediately.
The medicine name and the condition are fictitious. The rest of the scenario is not. Now exactly how is that seeing an advertisement from company primarily interesting in selling its product and frankly doesn’t give a crap about where it goes as long as pharmacies around the country keep sending orders for more product should make the patient knowledgeable enough to know how to diagnose his or her ailment or determine what treatment is best for that condition. While we might be wise to question our doctors before beginning new treatments or medications, should we not trust our doctor to know what medicine is best for our use?
Naturally, we’d hope it were that simple. Most doctors are ethical and prescribe medication based on what his or her professional judgment indicates is appropriate. However, these same pharmaceutical companies also spend millions of dollars to entice doctors to pump out the prescriptions for their product. One is providing the doctor with a nice stash of medications to provide as free samples to patients. Is there anything wrong with doctors dispensing such medication if it is the most appropriate treatment? Probably not. However, many companies take things further providing doctors all kinds of perks from dinner at fancy restaurants, gifts like televisions and electric gadgets, travel to vacation spots, and other premiums to encourage the dispersal of their products. Once this kind of practice was common in Washington to curry favor from our elected leaders. Corporate America has ethical guidelines and policies that limit what procurement officers and others in the supply management and buying chain from receiving undo benefits from the vendors who serve the company. What governs a doctor’s interaction with pharmaceutical companies and medical suppliers other than his own common sense? What kind of due-diligence could patients ask doctors to disclose to know what standards of ethics they follow? Right now it’s only a gentlemen’s agreement. We should trust that is sufficient, but what about when it isn’t?
If you suspect such doctor is acting unprofessionally, stop employing his services immediately and find a new doctor. Oops, you’re in a managed care program and don’t have that option…. One more argument against government provided health care.
The situation above is what arises in free enterprise based medicine. The potential and abuse for corruption grows tremendously as the number of decision makers goes up. The more people involved beyond the doctor and patient the worse. At least patients can keep from voluntarily adding to the problem by falling for the schemes presented in the myriad of ads for every medical condition known to man and his pets.
What’s wrong with this picture? We’ve heard this kind of message hundreds of times as the pharmaceutical industry attempts to peddle its product on a gullible public. Okay, your ass itches. You’re watching your favorite television program and then there’s the ad for the miracle cure for ass itching. These ads generally have some fairly smart person giving a personal account of his or her suffering or a person supposed to be a doctor, seldom a white male, gently advising the patient or the television audience that if he or she exhibits any symptoms, then “Crapocilen” might be just the right drug to save the day. Then they deliver the pitch, “If your ass itches, talk to your doctor. Ask your doctor if “Crapocilen is right for you!” Oh boy, the cure. Wait, then comes the disclaimer. Using “Crapocilen” may have certain side effects. Patients may experience constipation, diarrhea, bloating, headaches, indigestion, lack of sexual desire, or depression. If you exhibit any of these symptoms, stop using “Crapocilen” immediately and call your doctor. If you have thoughts of suicide or committing mass murder, stop using “Crapocilen” and call 911 immediately.
The medicine name and the condition are fictitious. The rest of the scenario is not. Now exactly how is that seeing an advertisement from company primarily interesting in selling its product and frankly doesn’t give a crap about where it goes as long as pharmacies around the country keep sending orders for more product should make the patient knowledgeable enough to know how to diagnose his or her ailment or determine what treatment is best for that condition. While we might be wise to question our doctors before beginning new treatments or medications, should we not trust our doctor to know what medicine is best for our use?
Naturally, we’d hope it were that simple. Most doctors are ethical and prescribe medication based on what his or her professional judgment indicates is appropriate. However, these same pharmaceutical companies also spend millions of dollars to entice doctors to pump out the prescriptions for their product. One is providing the doctor with a nice stash of medications to provide as free samples to patients. Is there anything wrong with doctors dispensing such medication if it is the most appropriate treatment? Probably not. However, many companies take things further providing doctors all kinds of perks from dinner at fancy restaurants, gifts like televisions and electric gadgets, travel to vacation spots, and other premiums to encourage the dispersal of their products. Once this kind of practice was common in Washington to curry favor from our elected leaders. Corporate America has ethical guidelines and policies that limit what procurement officers and others in the supply management and buying chain from receiving undo benefits from the vendors who serve the company. What governs a doctor’s interaction with pharmaceutical companies and medical suppliers other than his own common sense? What kind of due-diligence could patients ask doctors to disclose to know what standards of ethics they follow? Right now it’s only a gentlemen’s agreement. We should trust that is sufficient, but what about when it isn’t?
If you suspect such doctor is acting unprofessionally, stop employing his services immediately and find a new doctor. Oops, you’re in a managed care program and don’t have that option…. One more argument against government provided health care.
The situation above is what arises in free enterprise based medicine. The potential and abuse for corruption grows tremendously as the number of decision makers goes up. The more people involved beyond the doctor and patient the worse. At least patients can keep from voluntarily adding to the problem by falling for the schemes presented in the myriad of ads for every medical condition known to man and his pets.
No comments:
Post a Comment