Interesting comment below:
The solution could hardly be simpler: any continuing medical education that
is paid for by the drug industry should not be accredited. 
Judy Ritchie

Diagnosis: Conflict of Interest  (needs subscription to NYTimes)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/opinion/13carlat.html?th&emc=th
 
By DANIEL CARLAT
Published: June 13, 2007
....The chore of teaching doctors how to practice medicine has been handed
to the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, dangerous side effects are
rarely on the curriculum.

Most states require that doctors obtain a minimum number of credit hours of
continuing medical education each year to maintain their medical licenses.
Not so long ago, most of these courses were produced and paid for by
universities and medical associations. But this has changed drastically over
the past decade.

[snip]
Essentially, this is a new twist on that well-known instrument of
corruption, money laundering. Drug companies don't directly pay doctors to
teach courses. Instead, they pay someone else to cut the checks. Similarly,
the drug companies don't explicitly tell doctors to say good things about
their products. Instead, they hire a company to write good things about
their products and to pay doctors to deliver the messages.
 
These shenanigans were recently spotlighted by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat
of Montana, and Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, of the Senate
Finance Committee. In April, their committee released a report, two years in
the making, concluding that drug companies have used educational grants
unethically as a way of marketing their products.

In response, the guidelines regarding commercial support for continuing
medical education are being reviewed. The solution could hardly be simpler:
any continuing medical education that is paid for by the drug industry
should not be accredited. Drug companies could still pay for any educational
event, article or pamphlet they choose, but their courses and materials
would no longer bear the imprimatur and implied credibility of
accreditation. 

Doctors, in turn, would be encouraged to seek medical education from sources
that are not financed by drug companies. A renewed commitment to unbiased
education would allow doctors to learn about drug risks sooner. This would
be good for doctors, and even better for their patients. 
Daniel Carlat, a professor at Tufts Medical School, is the editor in chief
of The Carlat Psychiatry Report.

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]