Should drug companies be allowed to talk directly to patients?
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7402.1302 (Published 12 June 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:1302All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
it will be a sad day when the drug companies are allowed to talk
with the patients. only trained physicians can determine who is talkng
what. as it is, we are constantly being bombarded with literature, most of
which i think has to be taken with a pinch of salt.i find a lot of
information disseminated by the drug companies are just tall claims aimed
at making a quick buck. with rapidly expanding medical science a busy
practioner can be deceived by distorted literature dished out by these
companies. how will it be possible for ordinary patients without any
medical training from being taken for a ride when trained physicians fall
prey? it will be a miracle if you find any drug company giving the entire
"correct" information. they will go bankrupt if they do so. better to
leave it to a third, non-partisan organisation to give medical information
to the patients.
i will go a step further in asking all physicians to refer to standard
texts only (not journals) in determining new treatment for their patients.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
When I first saw the Pele ad for impotence I knew at the end there
was going to be some reference to it being sponsored by Pfizer - and
indeed this proved to be the case. With tadenafil and vardenafil on the
scene I reckon that this ad will not been seen for much longer. Of course
if Trevor Jones is right, and pharmaceutical companies are such altruistic
organisations whose aim is to provide "accurate, balanced, scientifically
based, and ethically sound information about their medicines" (1) I look
forward to seeing a new, better ad jointly promoted by Pfizer, Lilly and
Bayer.
1. Jones, T. Should drug companies be allowed to talk directly to
patients? YES. BMJ 2003; 326: 1302.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Drugs Mis-Advertisements
As a severe pain patient in a large hospital's managed pain program,
I have been involved with many drugs for my own care. I have taken the
time to read all the available information about every drug i take. What
amazes me is the claims that are made on television and print ads for
these same drugs.
My first thought was that most of the claims were fraud at the worst
and severely stretching the truth if otherwise. Sadly the average patient
has no clue about the validity of such claims yet they often openly talk
about how great it will be once they get the doctor to prescribe it.
SO now we have patients - with no clue of interactions or
misapplications pressuring overworked doctors to prescribe drugs that they
want - but do not really need. It takes a strong physician to stand up to
an otherwise good patient and say NO!
GOOD LUCK Doctors!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests