In the doctors office.

[Max Headroom]

During the two hours I had to sit and ponder int he dr's waiting room this afternoon I noticed he had an add for viagra on the wall. The add was contained in a case owend by a local advertiser and not the doctor himself.

The thing that I started to ponder was the legitimacy of such an add and it's reflection on the doctors who work in this clinic.

If an organization of any sort is paying a medical profesional to advertise their medical product with the confies of their office, does this damage the credibilty of the doctor, or his percieved impartiality towards the use of the best treatment methods avaliable. In other words, does any one see the conflict of interest here?

I gotta stop thinking so much....

[Hyakujo's Fox]

So... they wouldn't give you any?

[Saxifrage]

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

During the two hours I had to sit and ponder int he dr's waiting room this afternoon I noticed he had an add for viagra on the wall. The add was contained in a case owend by a local advertiser and not the doctor himself.

The thing that I started to ponder was the legitimacy of such an add and it's reflection on the doctors who work in this clinic.

If an organization of any sort is paying a medical profesional to advertise their medical product with the confies of their office, does this damage the credibilty of the doctor, or his percieved impartiality towards the use of the best treatment methods avaliable. In other words, does any one see the conflict of interest here?

I gotta stop thinking so much....

That sort of thing is a common "under the table" practice. I think 60 Minutes did an expose' on it awhile back. Doctors are getting kickbacks to push certain drugs, not all Doctors but enough to cause a problem. I better be carefull though or someone will jump on me for saying the medical industry in self serving.

[trisherina]

In every sector of society, regardless of where you go, you will find people whose notion of morality is based on what you can get away with; i.e. if it's not prohibited outright, it must be okay. So in health care you find stuff like pharmaceutical research "teams" and "programs" who completely accept it as their due that in the course of the year some company will fund a two-week junket to some warm clime for their entire personnel (in the name of revisiting some warmed-over research, usually). In fact, such people regard others who go to some length to refuse the various "gifts" that the industry proffers as losers and suckers. My seven-year-old can parse out the moral issues at work here.

[xfox]

Max, I think your thought was well expressed.

IMHO in 1965 when Medicare and health insurers began paying the doctors directly everything changed. In 1965, and prior, if you had medical insurance you paid the doctor directly. When that changed, and medical malpractice got out of hand, well, the patient was out of the loop. (I know some doctors who quit practice because of high premiums). Insurers add significantly to the cost of healthcare by employing armies of "middlemen" that stand between the patient and the doctor. Doctors are specializing to the point of loss of the 'family doctor' who treated a patient from the aspect of being a person, and an organism.

The FDA and the drug companies have a symbiotic relationship. Our economy will continue to pay for and enjoy cures for awful diseases and conditions. We have the best healthcare in the world, in spite of many inequities, like advertising a drug that brings pleasure for old folks.

Hope you're in for something minor.

[madasacutsnake]

Originally Posted by xfox

............medical malpractice got out of hand

NO. Check your facts.

Originally Posted by xfox

I know some doctors who quit practice because of high premiums

We've done this before.