Stanford Says No to Continuing Education "Lobbyists"
Thursday August 28, 2008
Lobbyist might be a little strong, I admit, but influence is what Stanford is trying to avoid in their recent decision to restrict industry funding for the medical continuing education programs they provide for 18,324 practicing physicians every year.
The Palo Alto Online News published an article by Don Kazak yesterday explaining that the nearly $2 million Stanford receives from pharmaceutical and medical device companies each year will go into a general fund for continuing education. No longer will the companies be able to choose which topic in a program their money supports.
Do you agree with Stanford? Personally, I'm surprised it's been happening up to now. Letting drug companies control the content of continuing education courses screams of special interest. While professionals of all kinds certainly need to know about the latest and greatest products out there, they should choose them based on effectiveness, not wealth.
What do you think?
Comments
If it were my money I’d like to know where it was being spent. It doesn’t seem out of line for anyone to designate how their donations are used. That’s what grants are all about isn’t it?
The pharmaceutical and medical device companies have proven repeatedly that their motives are far from humanitarian. They wield far too much economic power in an already troubled economy. Students of metaphysics and spiritual healing would further argue that their new-found freedom in advertising actually promotes the spread of disease through the power of suggestion, and that they, themselves are fully aware of it. Ask your doctor.
I hate it when I go to my doctor’s office and some drug company is bringing in lunch. And some drug company is always bringing in lunch! You cannot convince me that such freebies do not influence a doctor’s prescribing practices. If it didn’t work, the drug companies wouldn’t do it. And as a MS patient who uses a very expensive drug, I would like for my doctor to recommend a drug based on hard research, not on the quality of the pastrami sandwich he had for lunch.
I agree with Susan. Drug companies have way too much influence on doctors and what they’re prescribing. They should not be able to dictate specific courses to a college. If they want to contribute to a college, it should be with no strings attached.
I agree with Stanford’s decision. It’s OK to take the money as long as the sponsorship does not influence content. Allowing the companies to dictate content is just a commercial advertisement; not education.