SiCKO Debuts At Cannes On Saturday
10 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 16th, 2007 // 8:39 am
The movie that drugmakers have dreaded is just three days from being previewed and, like it or not, Michael Moore will force big pharma to confront its public image, at least for a little while.
There’s no doubt that Moore is a polarizing figure; he counts on provocations to generate discussion and, of course, publicity. But Moore really isn’t the issue, and big pharma misses that point by attempting to marginalize his efforts. The reality is that, if the issues he purportedly explores in SiCKO aren’t already on the table, his message won’t resonate.
So is that Moore’s fault? Or has industry made it easy for him - and other critics - to pull out the long knives? This requires a gamut of people - from board members, ceo’s, hr and general counsels all the way down to public relations, brand managers and regional sales directors - to look in the mirror and ask why their industry is increasingly villified.
Too often, big pharma hides behind excuses. Just like the argument that developing drugs costs hundreds of millions of dollars wears thin on people who can’t afford their meds, so does the mantra that a highly regulated business requires playing everything close to the vest.
Granted, trade secrets and patents play a huge role in maintaining a closed-mouth culture. And in this litigious world, few people are surprised that mistakes aren’t simply admitted. But from all indications, Moore’s film will reiterate a point that critics say seems lost on big pharma - boasting about about patients as a priority always sounds like lip service.
Getting beat up in a widely publicized movie isn’t likely to make execs and their employees feel warm and fuzzy. Few people respond well to harsh criticism. So ignoring or chastising Moore and his film is likely to be a typical reaction. But that won’t make the issues disappear. If anything, big pharma will only appear more defensive, and confirm impressions that critics say is all too real.
The Cannes schedule[tags]Michael Moore, SiCKO[/tags]
SciDoc
Agree with blog. There was an excellent issue of the Chemical Engineering News on pharma’s declicining image a couple of years ago. The punclhline, I thought, was that patients/consumers become only more cynical when they hear pharma boosting itself, talking about the one-billion dollar pill, the great things accomplished, and on, and on.
We are at a “show me” phase, not only in terms of new medications but fewer headlines (which are justified, in my view) of the Oxycontin / Zyprexa / etc. stuff. People are primed to believe corruption has become the norm, quite unlike 10 years ago. (Harris polls show this clearly.)
Time to work hard, be quiet, and show it in deeds, done and not done.
Occam's Beard
Sorry, don’t mean to become a gadfly here, but I can’t let this pass either without examining the logic.
Or has industry made it easy for him - and other critics - to pull out the long knives? This requires a gamut of people …to look in the mirror and ask why their industry is increasingly villified.
So unpopularity necessarily has a just basis that the unpopular would do well to reflect on and change their ways?
Perhaps that should be pointed out to German Jews, if you can find any. Demonizing the unpopular is child’s play.
ed
Dear Occam’s Beard
Thanks for your note.
But you extrapolated my comment in ways that I didn’t intend nor do I think are correct.
Without getting into a morass of a philosophical discussion, I’m not writing about a popularity contest.
I’m writing about an industry that espouses the betterment of patients, but is repeatedly taken to task - and worse - over its business practices. And these practices often seem to contradict those lofty goals.
I am simply pointing out that change is needed, and not just for the sake of it, and certainly not for the sake of avoiding vilification. And that a sense of awareness would be useful.
As a member of the ancient Hebraic tribe, by the way, I am particularly sensitive to demonization and scapegoating. This was not my purpose in writing what I wrote.
Hope that helps, even a little.
ed
FCK Moore
Moore is a liberal freak and since DDMAC has cracked down on trips to exotic islands and the AG has tried hundred million dollar cases Moore is lucky to even have a film. Hey Moore, you are 8 years too late!!! If you even knew an 1/8 of the things we used to do you would have a billion dollar blockbuster. This is old news. The truth is the industry has cleaned itself up especially since sarbanes-oxley. Let’s face it, doc’s can’t be bought, trip have gone away and there is no story here any more. Too bad Roger!!!
Anonymous
Dear Fck,
Would you mind sharing some of those war stories?
Thanks for stopping by,
ed
Occam's Beard
Ed, it does help.
I did not mean to give offense, but just to point out that criticism, villification, and unpopularity are not necessarily directed where they’re not justified, or to a extent that’s justified. It’s perfectly possible to be unpopular and villified but having done nothing any worse than the usual run of human behavior.
So the first question should be whether villification is justified, and if so, how much. Has pharma done things that, in retrospect, look bad? Of course. Were they actually done with bad intentions? Maybe. It’s pretty easy to make someone’s actions look bad if half the population already assumes that that person has cloven hooves.
Try this as an exercise: replace “big pharma” with “journalists.” Have journalists made it easy for others to pull out long knives? Should they look in the mirror and ask why their industry is increasingly villified? Do they hide behind excuses? Do they espouse their role in bettering democracy, but repeatedly get taken to task for their business practices (fraudulent documents, photoshopped photos, naked but unspoken political bias) that seems to contradict that lofty goal? Of course, in each case. The same arguments obtain at least as well. Is villification justified?
Now let’s try “politicians,” “celebrities,” “sports figures,” and more topically, “environmental activists.” In each case, mutatis mutandis, the argument makes. So why does pharma receive such vituperation? Because they’re already unpopular, and therefore an easy target for demagogues such as the despicable Michael Moore, who makes no pretense of even-handedness.
ed
Dear Occam’s Beard,
I wasn’t offended; I understood the point.
And you make some good points. Big pharma is a catch-all phrase that doesn’t distinguish between companies and cultures, let alone individuals and their actions. It’s a convenient expression that I, for one, am guilty of using all the time.
Anyway, I don’t mean to suggest ‘big pharma’ is evil or there’s a black-and-white view to any of this. I’m simply trying, in my own way, to say that some of the criticism is justified and that remaining defensive doesn’t work as a strategy.
What you say about filling in the blank is certainly valid - there are other occupational groups or industries that have run into such quagmires. There are differences, too. If I make a mistake, I publicize it with a correction. No one wants others to ‘look under their hood,’ but my line of work seems to get its share of disinfectant.
As to Moore, I haven’t seen the film yet. And I deliberately didn’t say I agree with his point of view or not; I’ll wait to see the film.
Thanks for stopping by again and continuing the discussion. I enjoy the challenge and hope others do, too.
Cheers
ed
Occam's Beard
Ed, fair enough. I appreciate your high-mindedness in making your points. I don’t entirely disagree with you, but felt a need to play devil’s advocate to assuage my allergy to conventional wisdom.
Thank you again for your open and intellectually honest approach, and also for
providing this forum!
Charles Charles
There’s already been a documentary made on the pharmaceutical industry. It’s called The Rep and can be seen at http://www.confarta.com.
CairoKid
My problem with “big pharma” is the same one I have with, for example, the “handgun industry”- lobbyists. These businesses, like others, pay the politicians and the public suffers. And , of course, the revolving door- an industry overseen by its’ own. Doesn’t seem like anything new here.