Posted by Alan on October 13, 2002, at 16:47:21
In reply to Re: sources of information, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2002, at 13:58:20
> > we deserve better and need the most credible sources of information for your illustrious site to maintain it's crediblity.
> >
> > Visiting doctors (that have exposed their financial or otherwise intersts in a drug company) would seemingly be unqualified to give unbiased information. Why not limit advice and support from those docs that have their hands clean?
>
--------------------------------------------
Bob:
> Only "credible sources of information" should be allowed to post? Only doctors without conflicts of interest?
=========================================
Alan:
Yes the conflicts that I speak of negates credibility by a good margin.I'm not meaning to speak provocatively or rhetorically but why is that unrealistic or unworkable via-a-vis doctors full disclosure of lobbying influences? Is there a complication that I am nievely unaware of? Is the pharmecutical industry so pervasive in medicine that this idea is untenable?
=========================================
>
> > Don't patients deserve to have a sanctuary still waiting for them at here at PB?
> >
> > Please reconsider your policy of allowing overt commercial interests to permeate this prestigious bboard - a board full of sophisticated and newbies alike....if for no other reason, in the interest of protecting the vulnerable population.
>
-------------------------------------------------
Bob:
> I understand that you want what's best. The idea here, however, is support and education, not isolation from commercial interests. Alternative points of view could themselves be thought of as a form of protection:
==============================================
Alan:
I have outlined why I think comercialism is neither support or education in the effective and ethical sense. The "Isolation" that you speak of is not the same as differentiation.Relying on alternative points of view to "police" those commercial interests for the benefit of those that are vulnerable (most who visit the board I suspect are), are, by their very nature less credible in the unsuspecting eyes of the vulnerable - at least moreso than the naturally hope-giving business-speak of salesman.
Is the bboard going to become one of those "free - market" test cases where the theory of the free market solves most all of our problems - is that going to be the underpinning of it's philosophy? A medical model ever more inching closer to embracing the concept of further entangling commercialism with medicine? What's needed by all accounts that I observe - by press accounts, internet bboards, my doctor's account, my own experience with corporate doctors is that more distancing and oversight by the FDA is needed...not the other way around. And until that's done, the playing field is not a level one.
===========================================
Bob:
> > > The search for truth reminds me of Hegel: it is neither the "thesis" (the claim by the manufacturer that the medication is some sort of wonder drug) nor the "antithesis" (the claim by someone who blames all their problems on the medication), but rather a "synthesis" (a sober analysis of both positive and negative aspects). Information which is balanced and fair is trustworthy, whereas that which comes from either advocacy viewpoint is suspect.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20011025/msgs/82706.html
>
> Bob
===============================================
With all due respect Dr. Bob,Your analysis seems to sets out a false dichotomy - two extremes for the sake of illustrating the concept of synthesis.
There are other alternative models of synthesis that, pragmatically speaking, are doeable and perhaps more appropriate for this site in order to get at the truth that you speak of.
For instance, I've noticed over the years your wise practice of separating subject matter for different bboards so that entanglement of issues are minimised. This seems (paradoxically so) to be a form of synthesis - at least of some type that we seem to all agree is to our mutual benefit.
Issues as complicated as mental health with its plethora of rationale, treatment modalities, and the need to explore the nuanced aspects of it's nature have been well served by this administrative decision.
Why then is commercialism then allowed to creep into the med board (next will CBT influenced Lucinda Bassett's reps be "contributing" to Psycho-Social babble?) entangling further the one most incendiary problem in medicine today - the mixing of politics known as "face time" with the discipline of medicine?
For one example, why not clearly identify a separate board for pharmecutical companies or anxiety/depression gurus to hawk their wares with questions from the crowd - rather than have them be offered up in a forum asking for personal support about med experiences as anything other than what they are, salesmen?
Do you realistically think there will be replys from a pharmrep that will be anything other than resembling happy talk/support/ and sterile arguments about facts? That takes the whole concept (a not unimportant one) of informing and ultimately treating individual patients as individuals out of the equation...an assembly line mentality that more often than not encourages the patient to fit the medicine's criteria than the medicine to fit the patient's criteria...a cookie cutter mentality not condusive to respect of the individual - especially the vulnerable individual.
Certainly one (medicine) can not or should not do without the other (pharmecutical co's). They need to work together to find solutions for all of us.
But with all of the aforementioned conflict of interest at this stage of the game, in this present climate of relative lack of unbiased FDA oversight and doctors being lobbied and influence-pedaled at ever breathtaking rates - many of the best being co-opted to join and tow the company line - even believe themselves that their company line is comparatively enough "the answer" about how the brain actually functions and responds to the point that this is what they go back to the classroom to teach!
...why NOT take the conflict of interest out of the equation? The time has never seemed so ripe. Talk about a positive opportunity to keep these conflicts of interest out of the regular PB med board! Talk about an opportunity to remain a beacon for patient advocacy!
Why can't the administration of PB take the lead with this opportunity to creatively find a way to stop encouraging this unethical trend and acknowledge it for what it is rather than pretending what it isn't?
The search for the truth deserves no less in my opinion.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan
poster:Alan
thread:6905
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7682.html