"...and hospitals".

That's where medical schools are in Canada.

Zee

Katie, being an adult, should know that NOT all Commemorative Items
sold on the Shopping Channel "Can only increase in value".  Just as we
men more or less suspect that if we buy a certain personal grooming
product, it won't actually make women who get on elevators with us,
take all their clothes off within 2 floors.

Why all the ordinary and normal consumer judgement that runs a market
economy, should be put on suspension when you're buying a pill from a
for-profit company, is not clear. Why you even think a world in which
this is possible, even *could* exist, is not clear. Communism is dead,
you know. Perhaps the reason you're so pissed about the statin drugs,
is that you're a failed idealist, who missed out on the Utopia which
you assumed lurked in pharmacies in places run by politburos. Well, be
enlightened.

Sorry, nobody has ever seen such a utopia. There isn't a single field
of human endevor, and that includes the doing of pure science, where
you don't have to sort out the advertising from reality as regards any
new thing (yes, you can wait for time and experience to do it for you,
but that has penalties also). If you can't even get married or have sex
without having to do this chore (ie, evaluating advertising, see
"thinking") then why in the world do you think this burdon should, or
even could, be magically removed from you by some Powers That Be, when
it comes to medical care? Personal is personal.

Today's Newsflash: It's a dangerous world out there. Your body is
unique. Many of your experiences are unique. Also, you're mortal. You
take your life in your hands when you drive, and in many other spheres.
On the whole, nobody is as good at keeping you from harm as you are
(due to the fact that you have the most time and interest in the
result). Also, people are stupid and prone to lie to themselves as well
as others. Caveat emptor. You can't trust the seller, nor the
government, nor politicians, nor anybody else who stands to financially
benefit, or benefit in power or reproductive success, as a result of
doing ANYTHING they do. And you can't even always trust people who
don't obviously have any ulterior motives, because (again) people are
sometimes not very bright. And even the bright ones can have holes in
their knowledge. And are short on time, etc. And there are no
certainties, except that it's stupid to wish for a world composed of
certainties.

You can and should be skeptical of THIS message. Fine. You can be
skeptical of doctors and big pharma and the FDA. Fine. But have the
integrity to extend your skepticism to its natural end, and try for
just a moment to be skeptical of the political process also. Don't
suggest we put laws into place to give people any idea that somehow
they don't have to think for themselves anymore, because it has all
been done for them by disinterested government experts (LOL). That's
never a good attitude to inculcate in anybody.  "The effect of removing
men from the results of their folly, is to fill the world with fools."
(Herbert Spencer}.  We have too many fools already. Treating adults
like children encourages a world where people never fully grow up. The
best world requires everybody to excercise their full judgement as much
of the time as they can. Bringing force into areas in which there are
legitimate disagreements between reasonable and fully informed people
(ie, medicine and most of business) only puts sand in the gears of the
giant thinking machine that is your economy and your society. Leave it
alone!  Whenever the correct choice isn't obvious and clear to all,
give people freedom to choose for themselves. You will only injure
people more in the end, if you don't.

Let me put this one more way. Buying a product on the market, is
exactly like voting, except that it's voting with your money instead of
your ballot. There is no argument against limiting advertising which I
cannot just as legitmately (or illegitimately) apply to the process of
limiting political campaining or limiting democracy, or limiting
religious choice (which collection plate, if any, gets your money, in
return for the favor of god). We can do something about out-and-out
lies in politics, but they have to be pretty bad or they aren't clearly
recognizable as lies. Pre-emption, however, almost never works. You
think certain people are too stupid to know when an ad campaign is
taking them in?  Well, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote, either,
hey? Or to chose their own religion. I think it follows by logic. But
you see where it leads. So don't go there. Democracy can be ugly,
except the fixes are even uglier (to paraphase Churchill). The internet
and the press can also be ugly, but the same applies. Religious
argument is tedius, but adding force only makes it tedious and terrible
too. And capitalism and a market economy are ugly--- but they are also,
in the end, the same thing as a free press and a free political process
and any kind of freedom of thought. Homely as they sometimes are,
they're already as comely as they're ever going to be. So smile and
bow.

SBH

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in part:

That seems like an odd response. If you think that drug
advertising will help people choose OTC drugs, then why do you
think prescription drug advertising (to consumers) should be
banned? If it would improve the information they have when they go
to their doctors, why is it bad?
--
Jim Chinnis   Warrenton, Virginia, USA

I can't argue very enthusiastically on this point.
On the other hand, because he's a "reasonably good"
doctor, to spend time doing research would mean seeing
fewer patients.  Those patients turned away would then
have to go to a less competent doctor.

You may be right.  But the fact is, there ARE lots of doctors
who are adequate by professional standards, but whose knowledge
of new developments comes mainly from such biased sources.

Greed explains a lot:
- 2/3 of cardiac angioplasties are not only un-needed, but harmful (yes,
we know which ones in advance) - but, boy, do they rake in the dough.
- Only a tiny fraction of Vioxx prescriptions can be justified on
medical basis - why were the rest written?
- hormone replacement therapy, prostate removals, and on and on...
- lots of fancy imaging with no studies that show changes in outcome

Put it another way - can you think of ANYTHING that US physicians do
that they are not directly reimbursed for?  The vast bulk of them can't
even be bothered to suggest aspirin and fish oil to patients -- gee, it
takes a good 30 seconds to do this.

Until recently, when tobacco companies started pouring out cash, the AMA
(and the AHA) were the biggest-spending lobbyists in the nation.  Think
they were lobbying for better health?  You must be a Republican if
you're that naive.

As to pediatric docs:

I am in agreement with you that they less-better compensated for what is
demanding work (no need to take up a collection, though -- they are
still compensated extremely well, twice what physicians in France are
compensated, for example).  As it happens, I work with pediatric
surgeons and have asked them why they chose this route.  Answers include:
- Patients rarely die
- Kids are cute
- Patients are nicer
- Cases are more interesting - most adult stuff is pretty routine

=OCCAMMAN=