Comments on: Docs Bemoan The EPO Controversy http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/05/docs_bemoan_the_epo_controvers/ News, Comment and Conversation Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:51:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: ed http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/05/docs_bemoan_the_epo_controvers/#comment-3341 ed Fri, 04 May 2007 12:23:48 +0000 http://plt.starledger.webfactional.com/2007/05/docs_bemoan_the_epo_controvers/#comment-3341 Hi Chris, Thanks for writing. And I knew I would be told my view is simplistic. That's why I prefaced the remark by using the word 'idealistic.' I understand perfectly well the gray areas and recognize that, yes, some people may not be swayed by some sort of connection. Situations can vary dramatically and individuals will act differently. But in this instance, there is real controversy over guidelines and two prominent groups appear to have less than an independeat seat at the table. It's an impression they can't escape, even if it may seem unfair or simplistic. I come at this from the larger context - the increasing interest in promoting medical decisions free of influence by others whose priorities are different. At the risk of appearing simplistic, I will always argue for such an endpoint. And if this wasn't such a concern these days, such reminders wouldn't be necessary. Simplistic? Idealistic? Whatever. I stand accused. But that doesn't mean the point shouldn't be repeated. And no one - whether it's a journalist or a doctor - is above being reminded. Hope you take this with the spirit in which it's intended. Cheers ed Hi Chris,

Thanks for writing.

And I knew I would be told my view is simplistic. That’s why I prefaced the remark by using the word ‘idealistic.’

I understand perfectly well the gray areas and recognize that, yes, some people may not be swayed by some sort of connection. Situations can vary dramatically and individuals will act differently.

But in this instance, there is real controversy over guidelines and two prominent groups appear to have less than an independeat seat at the table. It’s an impression they can’t escape, even if it may seem unfair or simplistic.

I come at this from the larger context - the increasing interest in promoting medical decisions free of influence by others whose priorities are different. At the risk of appearing simplistic, I will always argue for such an endpoint.

And if this wasn’t such a concern these days, such reminders wouldn’t be necessary. Simplistic? Idealistic? Whatever. I stand accused. But that doesn’t mean the point shouldn’t be repeated. And no one - whether it’s a journalist or a doctor - is above being reminded.

Hope you take this with the spirit in which it’s intended.

Cheers

ed

]]> By: Chris O'Toole http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/05/docs_bemoan_the_epo_controvers/#comment-3340 Chris O'Toole Fri, 04 May 2007 12:05:52 +0000 http://plt.starledger.webfactional.com/2007/05/docs_bemoan_the_epo_controvers/#comment-3340 Like many on this board I have worked for years with physicians who have ties to industry. I have been on the client side as well as on the agency/consultancy end of things and have found consistently that physicians have been consistently fair in the way they operate while under sponsorship. They have too much at stake to put at risk by leaning too heavily one way or another in favor of a sponsor. I believe that receiving sponsorhip doesn't necessarily result in conflict and that their professional care decisions are unlikely to be unduly influenced as a result. From the outside politicians and advocacy groups may too easily assume this to be so, but from the inside it's easier to see that such a view is a little simplistic. Just my opinion. Like many on this board I have worked for years with physicians who have ties to industry. I have been on the client side as well as on the agency/consultancy end of things and have found consistently that physicians have been consistently fair in the way they operate while under sponsorship. They have too much at stake to put at risk by leaning too heavily one way or another in favor of a sponsor. I believe that receiving sponsorhip doesn’t necessarily result in conflict and that their professional care decisions are unlikely to be unduly influenced as a result. From the outside politicians and advocacy groups may too easily assume this to be so, but from the inside it’s easier to see that such a view is a little simplistic. Just my opinion.

]]>