In Reply to: I found his article a little sanctamonious... posted by cfcjb on February 25, 2007 at 16:28:17:
...the naysayers here are projecting their own weaknesses onto the reviewers.>Accepting any gift, no matter how small, jeopardizes that impartiality and thus has the ability to taint the review process.>
No it doesn't.
I can only speak for myself, but a dinner or trinket from a manufacturer never affected my ability to be impartial and write about exactly what I heard.
>There was an interesting article recently about doctors and drug companies. The basic premise of the piece was that even small gifts over time can sway a doctor's opinion.>
As a healthcare professional, I am very aware of this and have read the article you mention. I have a service I sell to doctors, too.
There are big differences here, IMO.
Manufacturers do not usually have the 'over time' because it is a one time dinner and review.
The reviewers' first goal is to protect his credibility and reputation, and secondly that of the magazine, his employer.
If a doctor doesn't perceive therapeutic differences between two brands of drugs, why not prescribe the one with the friendliest or prettiest sales rep, or the one who buys him dinner?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I can't help but think... - mkuller 11:07:05 02/27/07 (5)
- Suppose one drug costs your patients $20 and the pretty sales rep's similar drug costs $45? nt - Rick W 15:42:29 02/27/07 (4)
- Re: Suppose one drug costs your patients $20 and the pretty sales rep's similar drug costs $45? - mkuller 09:54:33 02/28/07 (0)
- Maybe in the 70's, but - Bruce Kendall 18:22:44 02/27/07 (2)
- So...that's why Americans would be walking over the border to Canada for their prescriptions. - cfcjb 03:19:45 02/28/07 (1)
- I'll give you a small touche for that, even though it is - Bruce Kendall 08:57:18 02/28/07 (0)