The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants

Janus-Like Opposing Views Becoming Contentious

[By Staff Reporters]

According to Tracy Staton, the Journal of the American Medical Association may be fighting to keep long-running internal arguments over conflicts-of-interest with big pharma a secret. But, in public, it’s advocating strict limits on industry funding for medical associations.

JAMA Proposals

A set of proposals published recently in JAMA, calls for associations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, to refuse general budget support from drug and device companies. Currently, many specialty physicians’ groups are partly funded by industry. Companies also sponsor conferences, physician fellowships and buy ads in the societies’ journals. The proposed guidelines would allow associations to continue to accept industry advertising and to allow industry-sponsored booths at conferences.

Distinction

The key distinction, the article’s lead author said, is that ads and booths are clearly presenting a company’s point of view. “You can read the ads, skip the ads, but there’s nothing hidden,” David J. Rothman, a professor at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University, told the Wall Street Journal. “What I don’t like is when I can’t tell if what I’m hearing is science, or marketing in the guise of science.”

Opposing Viewpoints

But others disagree. For example, the American College of Cardiology’s chief allegedly told the paper that industry funding has “zero impact on the content of any program here.” And PhRMA said that the guidelines could limit the information doctors receive. “It’s important to realize that [doctors] have their own sense of integrity,” a PhRMA spokeswoman.

Assessment

ME-P publisher, Dr. David Edward Marcinko, on the other hand, believes that Columbia University’s torturous verbal parsing is

“merely a distinction with little substantive difference.”

Link:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854648226076095.html

Conclusion

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated? Do you agree with the current – but aging medical establishment – or the emerging generation of young and idealistic medical students and physicians who increasingly abhor the big-pharma practices? Is this another example of tawdry JAMA censorship? Is the AMA running away from its moral ethos of professional integrity?

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com  

Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Subscribe Now:Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest ME-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Filed under: "Doctors Only", Breaking News, Drugs and Pharma, Ethics, Health Law & Policy, Op-Editorials | Tagged: AMA, American College Cardiology, American Society of Clinical Oncologists, big-pharma, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, David J. Rothman, david marcinko, drug companies, hope hetico, JAMA, Journal American Medical Association, pharmaceutical companies, PhRMA, WSJ | 5 Comments »