John Fauber and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel continue their long-running “Side Effects” series – the longest-running journalism series on health care/medical research conflicts of interest. In the latest story, Fauber reports on a University of Wisconsin pain research group that he says has “cozy personal financial relationships with drug makers,” receiving millions, while helping to “liberalize use of opioids.”
In the Philadelphia Inquirer, medical reporter Stacey Burling tells the story of “The last month: A husband’s final days. ” It’s about her husband’s death from brain cancer.
She concludes:
“Like many of us, I had been lucky enough to have encountered very little death in my life. I knew people whose parents had died, but people don’t talk about the nitty-gritty of death, like how it feels to give raspberry-flavored morphine when you know you’re choosing between pain control and length of life. I didn’t want to hurt Jeff’s feelings by reading books on caregiving when he didn’t need it; when he did, I didn’t have time to read.
I came to wish that I had asked more questions, more insistently, and that the doctors and nurses who worked so hard to keep my husband alive had talked openly – before there was a crisis – about what my role as a caregiver would be like when their work was done.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Comments are closed.
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