The Milwaukee Journal – a paper facing all the struggles (and maybe some more) that any news organization faces – continues to shine through it all with its health news coverage.
Reporter John Fauber has a two-part series this week on “doctors moonlighting for drug companies.” Excerpt:
It’s a practice that increasingly is drawing criticism because of concerns that it can influence patient care and raise the cost of treatment, in addition to blurring the line between research and marketing.
The deans of the state’s two medical schools say they would like to ban the practice or severely limit it.
“I am very bothered by our faculty using our school’s name in giving non-academic promotional, marketing talks,” said Robert Golden, dean of the UW medical school. “It’s a major issue we are talking about now.”
In October, the Wisconsin Medical Society, as part of its recommendations for ethical behavior, said doctors should not serve as speakers. The group has no authority to regulate or stop the practice.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
sloane
January 17, 2009 at 7:44 pmOne big change that the pharamaceutical companieshave made voluntarily is to ban promotional items…..which will save them about $1B and also eliminate the ever-present reminder that they are constantly courting doctors. I think that patients are better off seeing the emblazoned logos as a reminder that the trinkets, sometimes the doctors (well, at least their scripting habits) and published studies on a drugs effectiveness, have all been bought and paid for.
Branding expert John Tantillo pointed out his marketing blog that seeing a drug company’s name in a doctor’s office can, in this Internet age, not merely be subliminal influence, but may actually remind the patient to go home and look into that company and/or their products.
“Bottom line: the consumer and the doctor need more information, not less. This kind of regulation achieves the exact opposite result. Real marketing is open and above board. This move is just getting rid of the evidence of questionable practices and a turning away from the kind of marketing that will serve everyone’s needs best.”
Tantillo’s full post: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2009/01/12/will-the-pharma-dogood-police-ruin-marketing.aspx
the publisher
January 18, 2009 at 10:04 amI read Tantillo’s full post, as you urged. It ends with this:
“If real advertising is the truth well told, then it is in the consumer’s interest to hear that truth told as often and as fully as possible.”
Unfortunately, too much pharma marketing and advertising is NOT the truth well told.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like