Should drug companies be allowed to talk directly to patients?: NO
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7402.1302-a (Published 12 June 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:1302
All 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.
Wendy Garlick tells us that 'There should be one central,
independent, and impartial source of information on medicines and
treatments which is stripped of any commercial or political bias and which
the public can rely on to provide or direct them towards accurate and
current information. '
I agree absolutely. There should be. And in an ideal world, there
would be, just as there would be no famine or poverty, and Gerry Adams and
Ian Paisley would be seen sharing a few jokes over a pint or two of
Guinness (in a smoke-free pub, of course). On the other hand, an ideal
world would have no disease, so such a resource would be unnecessary.
Back to the real world for a moment, who is going to pay for this
wonderful information source? I don't see governments queuing up to fund
it. Even if they did, would it really be 'stripped of any commercial or
political bias'? The government tried to give impartial advice on MMR
vaccine, and in my own view made a reasonable job of it, but they were
still widely distrusted. Can we be sure that advice sponsored by
government would always be completely impartial, and not influenced by
whatever this week's political dogma happens to be?
While we are waiting for the ideal world to materialise, wouldn't it
be better to have information sponsored by industry than no information at
all?
Competing interests:
My company provides medical communication services. If large amounts of money were spent, whether by industry or government, on providing medical information, some of it could conceivably come our way.
Competing interests: No competing interests
So who should we trust? It's obvious!
So the Consumers Association conducted a survey in June 2002, which showed that only 25% of the public would trust drug companies to provide them with impartial information.
A survey conducted by a Berkshire general practice, (and still open to patient input) shows that only 0.6% of patients rarely trust information from their GP and 65% always trust the information provided. The survey also shows that 93.9% of respondents believe receiving information from their GP in the form of emails is a GREAT principle.
So we now know who needs to send the information and also the simple, low cost, almost ubiquitous communication medium that can be embraced.
For access to the survey, go to:
http://www.mygeneralpractice.co.uk/binfield and look under services for the Imed(Poll).
Competing interests:
Marketing manager for MyGeneralPractice; a company set up to help general practices communicate impartial, patient centric, information regularly to their patients.
Competing interests: No competing interests