|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access |
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on General medicine
→ More articles on Pharmacology
→ More articles on Ethics
A recent editorial discussed the issue of interactions between doctors and pharmaceutical companies (MJA 2006; 185: 299-300). The reactions ranged from agreement to offence.
To the Editor: I would like to congratulate Tattersall and Kerridge on their recent editorial covering the issue of industry influence in medical education.1 Like the authors, I was dismayed on seeing the Australian Medical Association statement to the press regarding the recently revised Australian Competition and Consumer Commission guidelines for disclosure of industry support. Industry supports medical education because it pays, and we would be well advised to remain aware of this basic fact.
It amazes me that anyone could subscribe to the view that doctors need industry freebies to remain informed of new therapeutic options in this age of electronic media. We are constantly inundated with information — the issue is to choose reliable, unbiased data. As a rule, industry-sponsored sources of information should be regarded as potentially biased and therefore suspect. In my view, direct industry sponsorship of continuing medical education activities is inappropriate and should not just be regulated, but abolished altogether.
Competing interests: I have received speakers’ fees from GE Medical Systems and American Medical Systems.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nepean Clinical School, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, NSW.
hpdietzATbigpond.com
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Terms of use | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2006 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377