Posted by Alan on October 24, 2002, at 0:39:44
In reply to Pharmrep shouldn't be allow to give medical advice » Alan, posted by wcfrench on October 23, 2002, at 23:47:31
> > What do you mean? Many *doctors* are making their decisions based largely on info from pharm reps! That's part of the problem. Why do you think "face time" is the be all and end all in the business today? If doctors are indeed swayed by the cherry-picked test results, why then wouldn't suggestable psychological or psychiatric participants on PB be?
>
> Doctors aren't. If you've had a good doctor, he will tell you that most results are produced by the drug companies, and that you really have to search and verify sources of information for accurate results. When I told my last doctor that I'd heard of Remeron being faster working than Prozac, the first thing he said was "you really have to read these results carefully and verify where they come from." On top of that, most doctors base their medication recommendations on past patient response and experience, not a cherry-picked presentation.
-----------------------------------------------
The sticking point is that very first one....GOOD doctor. From what I read on this bboard and others, you and I are perhaps in the distinct minority - not because of anything sinister - but because the time and leg-work for the average doc to verify and trust their claims is impossible to fulfill with the case load of the majority of HCP's.Which leads to sticking point two. Doctors do make assumptions based on past experience - but many to a fault - to an almost cookie-cutter mentality that blames the patient for an undesireable outcome with a medication rather than the other way around...leading them to think twice before titrating a patient ad nauseum on the same class of drugs (or worse, polypharmacy as a rule rather than the exception) before even considerng others that they have less experience with.
-----------------------------------------------
>
> > Unfortunately pharm rep is indeed instructing how to medicate and from a from a self-claimed position of relative authority (consistently using Forest's own documented test results as evidence) and covering themselves by saying that their advice is based on contact with what a few doctor "friends" are telling them.
>
> This should not be allowed, and Dr. Bob should block him if he is issuing medical advice. He is not a doctor. And even doctors who post here shouldn't issue medical advice to patients that are not their own. It should not be allowed, and it should not be listened to.
------------------------------------------------
Instucting the adjusting of doses and start-up proceedures and so on (under the guise that this is what their doctor "friends" are telling them) is dispensing medical advice as it is coming from a position of authority. If I had said the same thing it would be a suggestion based on my own personal experience and not prescribing information gleaned from my doctor "contacts".
I agree, Dr. Bob should do something about this.
------------------------------------------------
>
> > Why is it alright for a pharmrep to dispense medical advice to a suggestable group in need of psychological help? The people that come here aren't here to pass the time I suspect. They're here to hear personal stories about medications...not the same corporate line that docs get every day but in reconstituted "Goober-talk". And if it's in medspeak, the average joe on this board isn't going to know what the hell they're talking about anyway....technically just far enough above their heads to have the consumer collectively nod their heads in bewilderment and agreement?
>
> Then don't listen to him. Many do not want to hear what he has to say because of his credibility and lack of experience, and they simply heed other's advice. Let him post all he wants in med speak and post meaningless statistics. His audience will diminish and Psycho Babble will alienate him. Most of the thread involves argument anyway, exactly proving the point that we know how to think for ourselves.
>
> -Charlie
----------------------------------------------
Well taken. But that's you and I you're talking about - not the vast majority that are impressionable that perhaps don't even post, that DO seem to be heeding the pharmreps advice, unaware of the conflict of interest and indeed unaware of the whole of why there IS any conflict of interest to begin with.Others have to police that kind of thing? If it wasn't a problem to begin with, why would it be necessary to police it?
I'm sorry but this "free market" solution to everything that seems to be permeating every nook and cranie of our lives has gone too far.
And that's not meant to be a purely political statement. It's just that there has to be SOME sort of oversight and lines drawn when it comes to mixing medicine and commercialism.I see none as of now other than "free market" regulation - which in the case of medicine - especially considering the present climate involving the pervasiveness of commercial interests involved - is no authoratative regulation at all.
Alan
poster:Alan
thread:6905
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7798.html