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.
Almost every week, we are informed about the corrupt practices at the
interface of pharmaceuticals, drug regulatory agencies and politicians
that ultimately have also plagued every corner of our life as academicians
and medical practitioners. Unfortunately, our drug prescribing behavior
is by and large is guided by medical representatives. Notably, physicians
prescribe drugs for off-label reasons causing tremendous harms to both
children and adolescents and elderly population in whom most medications
are neither indicated nor justified.
The ill-directed influence of pharmaceutical companies is obviously
pervasive in changing the behavior of prominent politicians and drug
regulators and sadly finally patients have to pay the huge price
unnecessarily and moreover they are the sufferers of such malpractices.
Politicans need funds for contesting elections, academecians need
funds for running universities and CME&R need funds for updating
knowledge and improving clinical practice of doctors and so on. But
finances from whom? Pharmaceuticals have huge financial resources to
assist
these people but with their own hidden agenda. This is a give and take
phenomenon and it is very hard to stop this behavior despite strict
guidelines, regulations and legislations.
Whistleblowers in rarity such as Allen Jones and mentioned
psychiatrist are doing the fine job but history suggests that monority
always suffers on the hands of majority. I personally support the
whistleblowers for their encouraging behavior for coming out with such
corrupt practices of high officials who have illegal relationships with
drug pharmaceutical companies.
We need to reduce the sufferings of health consumers by offering them
good medications, counseling and other excellent services but such care is
far from the medical scenario. We are deep in pharmaceutical waters and
coming out from it seems impossible.
Reference:
Jeanne Lenzer. Whistleblower charges medical oversight bureau with
corruption. BMJ 2004; 329: 69
Drug prescribing and Corruption:role of pharmaceuticals?
Sir:
Almost every week, we are informed about the corrupt practices at the
interface of pharmaceuticals, drug regulatory agencies and politicians
that ultimately have also plagued every corner of our life as academicians
and medical practitioners. Unfortunately, our drug prescribing behavior
is by and large is guided by medical representatives. Notably, physicians
prescribe drugs for off-label reasons causing tremendous harms to both
children and adolescents and elderly population in whom most medications
are neither indicated nor justified.
The ill-directed influence of pharmaceutical companies is obviously
pervasive in changing the behavior of prominent politicians and drug
regulators and sadly finally patients have to pay the huge price
unnecessarily and moreover they are the sufferers of such malpractices.
Politicans need funds for contesting elections, academecians need
funds for running universities and CME&R need funds for updating
knowledge and improving clinical practice of doctors and so on. But
finances from whom? Pharmaceuticals have huge financial resources to
assist
these people but with their own hidden agenda. This is a give and take
phenomenon and it is very hard to stop this behavior despite strict
guidelines, regulations and legislations.
Whistleblowers in rarity such as Allen Jones and mentioned
psychiatrist are doing the fine job but history suggests that monority
always suffers on the hands of majority. I personally support the
whistleblowers for their encouraging behavior for coming out with such
corrupt practices of high officials who have illegal relationships with
drug pharmaceutical companies.
We need to reduce the sufferings of health consumers by offering them
good medications, counseling and other excellent services but such care is
far from the medical scenario. We are deep in pharmaceutical waters and
coming out from it seems impossible.
Reference:
Jeanne Lenzer. Whistleblower charges medical oversight bureau with
corruption. BMJ 2004; 329: 69
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests