Still trying to get my mind around the IOM conflict of interest document. I am sure it is because I am not smart enough, as the report implies, to discern if my doctor is a total degenerate because he is unconsciously being manipulated to prescribe a certain product because of the free lunches that were handed out. Or as the IOM study puts it, it is too bad if I want to judge my doctor or a scientist on the quality of his or her work alone. Oh no. You see, " Here again the problem is that many people affected by professional decisions are not in a position to judge the validity of those decisions. In addition, those who are competent to judge may not be able to do so until after the damage has occurred. "
Note that the IOM report never specifies or demonstrates through research what damage has occured. And note that it presupposes that the great unwashed are too stupid to figure out that it is being duped to able to judge outcomes. Incredible. So much for evidence based medicine.
Meanwhile, "policies designed to reduce conflicts of interest and mitigate their impact provide an important foundation for public confidence in medical professionals and institutions." That should apply to every financial conflict. To the extent that most of the money and power in the health care system comes from government and involve hospital services that do NOT include devices and rugs. I have only suggested that the focus also be on the abuse of government's role in shaping research and clinical decisions and creating appropriate transparent firewalls between insurers, hospital and physicians so that doctors can be trusted to do what's best for the patient.
Finally there is the presumption that commercialization is inherently corrupting and that therefore information disseminated with support from commercial sources should be banned or disregarded without regard to scientific or intellectual merit. Perhaps I read too much into the IOM report. But to the extent that it calls for all measures to limit and eliminate such relationships while failing to disclose similar cozy connections of financing and self-referencing that created the conflict of interest issue, supported the work of the IOM, paid for it's consultants directly and indirectly all while having a media complicit in ignoring these connections, the end result is not objectivity but bias pure and simple. There may be merit in some recommendation or another in the IOM report. However the ultimate to goal is to enforce limits on science and medical practice that the authors would not impose on itself or many other interests who would profit from a decline in the rate of the introduction of new products.
Note that the IOM report never specifies or demonstrates through research what damage has occured. And note that it presupposes that the great unwashed are too stupid to figure out that it is being duped to able to judge outcomes. Incredible. So much for evidence based medicine.
Meanwhile, "policies designed to reduce conflicts of interest and mitigate their impact provide an important foundation for public confidence in medical professionals and institutions." That should apply to every financial conflict. To the extent that most of the money and power in the health care system comes from government and involve hospital services that do NOT include devices and rugs. I have only suggested that the focus also be on the abuse of government's role in shaping research and clinical decisions and creating appropriate transparent firewalls between insurers, hospital and physicians so that doctors can be trusted to do what's best for the patient.
Finally there is the presumption that commercialization is inherently corrupting and that therefore information disseminated with support from commercial sources should be banned or disregarded without regard to scientific or intellectual merit. Perhaps I read too much into the IOM report. But to the extent that it calls for all measures to limit and eliminate such relationships while failing to disclose similar cozy connections of financing and self-referencing that created the conflict of interest issue, supported the work of the IOM, paid for it's consultants directly and indirectly all while having a media complicit in ignoring these connections, the end result is not objectivity but bias pure and simple. There may be merit in some recommendation or another in the IOM report. However the ultimate to goal is to enforce limits on science and medical practice that the authors would not impose on itself or many other interests who would profit from a decline in the rate of the introduction of new products.
