RazorOye
carry all the groceries in in one trip
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Offline
Consider many pharmaceutical sales representative influence physicians to prescribe their drug by over-sampling, free lunches for the staff and by creating revenue streams for the physician by engaging them to speak to other physicians on their behalf through expensive dinner programs.
Do you agree with this sort of incentivizing of prescription medication dispensation? Whether dispensation generally (when there are other, non-prescription alternatives) or specifically pushing a brand.
I just don't understand this.Going into a physician office as educated as possible is important. If the consumer does their due diligence and researches beyond the television commercial they will find numerous blogs of individuals who have nothing to gain other than trying to help someone from their personal experience.
You're going to see the doctor. What diligence are you supposed to do? Let's say that you don't have access to that information. Let's say that you're told that you or your kid has something that you aren't able to diagnose yourself - so you don't even know if the treatment options that you are being given even work for what the diagnosis is. An emergency situation arises - one you have no time to study up on or look at the internet to investigate potential prescriptions or treatments you might get and the various pros/cons about them. Or what about when you log on the internet to find out about how a drug works or what it can cause or how effective it is against X and that information is, in fact, unreliable. Etc.
I think you are overstating the ease with which this "research" and "due diligence" can be conducted by a lot of people.
Why is that type of unbiased information not coming from the doctor? I think that should be part of his job. That's why we go to them - for them to do what is in the patient's best interest. Not pushing a certain drug that might not be optimal, blaming the patient if they take it and it's not the best option because he/she knows better.
The amount of trust that's given to doctors to be caregivers and to answer questions honestly and fairly and dispense information and medicine forthrightly is considerable.
It's one thing to get a second opinion. It's another thing to expect me to do the homework I trusted the doctor to do for me in the first place.
I don't think his job should be to push a particular drug because he's getting a sweet deal on the side from PharmaCorp XYZ and it's then up to the customer to decide if that drug is actually what he/she should be taking.
That's a pretty poor way of arranging a healthcare diagnosis/prescription transaction between a patient and his/her doctor.
It defies logic. I'd think it defies ethics.
And you're giving them a free pass? And then invoking some sort of caveat emptor because the panic-stricken single dad, in the ER with his infant daughter for the first time, didn't google treatments and prescriptions on WebMD before he left for the hospital.
This sort of expectation just doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not absolving the patient of responsibility here - my post above was entirely about taking one's own healthcare into his/her own hands whenever possible. But there's a difference between that and second-guessing everything a doctor says because his priorities might have been compromised and, well hey, that's on you.