choof.org
Welcome to choof.org. Unfair. Unbalanced.
Trent
Reznor
Nine Inch Nails
Emma
Goldman
Emma Goldman
Che
Guevara
Che Guevara
James
Joyce
James Joyce
Huey
Newton
To Die for the People
Ride the
clipper
The Sexist Clipper
Adbusters Adbusters
Buy! Shop!
UGA SGA
Archive
UGA SGA
An
Organization
Archive
An Organization
E-mail
Chris
E-mail Chris

More Links

Reenhead
Memepool
Robot Wisdom
Daily Rotten
Boing Boing
Politechbot
Declan's Pics
Cryptome
Richard Stallman
Seth Schoen
Earth Liberation Front
Lisa Rein's Radar
How Appealing
Stay Free
Mary Hodder
Bad Ads Weblog
Commercial Alert
Ponderance
Adrian Pritchett
Jenny Toomey
Simson Garfinkel

Archive

November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003












Choof.org "News"

August 02, 2004

Kassirer on Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure

Jerome Kassirer, editor in chief emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine, asks: why should we swallow what drug studies say?

In a society rife with conflicts of interest, disclosure of such conflicts is usually a good tonic. In finance, we can read the fine print and decide whether to invest or seek other advice. We can hedge our bets. But in medicine, where decisions on treatment can have lasting effects, mere disclosure isn't enough. Patients need advice they can act on without having to calibrate how likely it is to be biased. Physicians and scientists with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry should not just have to disclose conflicts -- they shouldn't be permitted to issue guidelines at all...

In describing the use of disclosure in business circles, an economist recently said, "It has become a truism on Wall Street that conflicts of interest are unavoidable. In fact, most of them only seem so, because avoiding them makes it harder to get rich. That's why full disclosure is so popular: It requires no substantive change." Disclosure covers up the question of bias with a patina of honesty. It tells you little or nothing about whether the disclosed conflicts of interest actually tainted a report. Because the issue of bias challenges the very integrity of researchers, people in the field shy away from talking about it.

...we should dissuade leading physicians from doing non-scientific work for pharmaceutical makers. Doctors who want to be respected as independent authorities should not become paid speakers for drug companies or consult with the industry on marketing issues. These arrangements do not benefit medicine or improve patient care; they only promote the profit goals of the companies. We should save the prized task of preparing clinical practice guidelines for experts without such conflicts. After all, having a financial conflict is voluntary; physicians can either take it or leave it. We must convince them to leave it.

...If medical organizations continue to use heavily conflicted experts to make clinical policy, they will erode the confidence of the public. The public needs medical institutions it can trust for help with decisions it can barely understand.

Posted by chris at August 2, 2004 08:52 AM

Comments

Post a comment




























Archive | Pictures

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.11