Former hospital CEO Paul Levy continues his relentless questioning about the proliferation and marketing of robotic surgery systems with a blog post entitled, “Time to fire somebody.”
It’s about an ad in the Sunday New York Times magazine.
The ad was placed by da Vinci Surgery (or Intuitive) – the robotic surgery system company.
But it features names and photos of members of the Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery at the University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System.
Levy notes that the ad has a disclosure that “some surgeons who appear in this ad have received compensation from the company for providing educational services to other surgeons and patients.” Then he writes:
Wait a second. Whose ad is this? If it is an ad paid for by the University of Illinois, why doesn’t the University hold the copyright? If the ad is paid for by Intuitive Surgical, Inc., how can the University allow its name to be used for commercial purposes?
According to its website, “The University of Illinois is the state’s best and most comprehensive public university.” Hmm, a public university, presumably supported by tax revenues. The University has a Code of Conduct, which provides, in part:
Those acting on behalf of the University have a general duty to conduct themselves in a manner that will maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the University and take no actions incompatible with their obligations to the University.
He goes on to list his own reading of that code and how it was violated by this ad.
And that is why he thinks someone should be fired for these violations. He nominates the highest-rank administrator and clinician who gave permission for the ad.
Read the whole piece.
And in the 3 days following this, he wrote about the issue four more times:
Here are some other things Levy has posted about robotic surgery systems – just in the past year!
With the proliferation and marketing of robotic surgery systems, there’s always something to write about.
ADDENDUM on Feb. 20:
The Chicago Tribune has now caught up with the story under the headline, “U of I doctors scrutinized for surgical robot ad.” Excerpt:
“The Tribune also found that some doctors pictured in the ad did not initially disclose their financial ties to the company that makes the robot, Intuitive Surgical Inc., as required by the university’s policies on conflicts of interest.
Intuitive selected the doctors to observe and monitor use of the device at other hospitals, work for which they were paid. The doctors disclosed that information only after the ad was published and the Tribune requested annual disclosure forms. One surgeon received about $16,000 in the most recent one-year reporting period.
For patients, the doctors’ participation in the ad and the lack of transparency raise questions about whether their physicians can offer objective advice when discussing robotic surgery as compared with other options.
…
U. of I. officials have asked Intuitive Surgical to discontinue the advertisement, and two weeks ago the university launched an investigation into the “circumstances of participation” in the ad. The review is expected to be completed by March 15.
University spokesman Thomas Hardy acknowledged in a statement that the university’s participation may have been a mistake.”
———————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
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