Panaceia or Hygeia

immunize yourself against the pandemic of lifestyle diseases

Posts Tagged ‘mcgill’

MUHC Endorses Pfizer’s Products

Posted by Colin Rose on April 9, 2010

Lipitor.ca

This is a back lit box on the first floor of the Montreal General Hospital, the “mountain campus” of the MUHC. This is how the McGill University Health Centre is caring for your health. Obviously Pfizer expects that the “professionels de la santé” at the MUHC would highly recommend Pfizer’s products and obviously the MUHC administration expects that they would. How many $millions is Pfizer paying the MUHC for this priceless endorsement of its products which directly benefit those “professionels de la santé?” What would happen to any of the “professionels de la santé” who gave “précieux conseils” that Lipitor was useless in the vast majority of people for whom it is prescribed as described in our blog page on statins? Do true professionals associate with organizations that take money from the profits of companies selling the products they recommend? In Quebec our taxes are about to increase dramatically to pay for a “health contribution” a lot of which will go to paying for expensive, mostly useless drugs like Lipitor. That’s good business if you are running a hospital but not if you are really caring for health. If you would like to protest this highly unprofessional behaviour  phone Rebecca Burns (MUHC media) at (514) 934-1934 Ext. 71443 or  email Dr. Arthur Porter, CEO of the MUHC.

—————————————————————————–

Update, April 16, 2010

It seems the MUHC administration felt some heat. One week after posting this blog, the Pfizer ad had been removed. They reacted so fast that they had no replacement and had to leave only an embarrassing blank light box.

Thanks to all those who took the time to register their opinion of this example of grossly unprofessional behaviour.

One hopes that in the future McGill and the MUHC will think twice about prostituting themselves to the drug dealers.

MGH-Box

Posted in cholesterol, drug marketing, drugs, ethics, professionalism, statins | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Drug Dealers Fund Doctors’ Education

Posted by Colin Rose on September 10, 2009

Here is a classic example of Big Pharma controlling what doctors get to hear during “continuing medical education”. Big Pharma pays big money to have their logos appear below that of McGill, a presumed institute of higher learning that is tacitly approving of their drugs and the methods they use to promote them.

There is always the meaningless disclaimer about how the grants are “unrestricted”. Just try inviting a speaker who is at all critical of Big Pharma and see how fast the grant disappears.

How much does the McGill Faculty of Medicine receive? How much of the money goes into undergraduate education? Is the money also influencing what gets taught to medical students?

Write to the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Richard Levin,  and try to get his answers. Lots of luck.

McGill-Refresher-Course-Drugs

Posted in cme, continuing medical education, drug marketing, professionalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

AAMC Calls For Strict Limits on Industry Support of Medical Education

Posted by Colin Rose on August 26, 2008

It’s about time!

But I would extend the recommendations to eliminate all industry funding of CME. If doctors can’t pay for their own education who can?

There are many  industry funded chairs at medical schools, like the Novartis Chair at McGill that pays the head of cardiology, that should be eliminated and their endowments returned to the industry donors with interest. Surely, out of the $many millions collected by the cardiology department for various clinical services, McGill can afford to pay a salary to its head.

All online drug funded CME, like this, should also be eliminated.

 

AAMC Calls For Strict Limits on Industry Support of Medical Education.

 

Washington, D.C., June 19, 2008-The AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) today urged all medical schools and teaching hospitals to adopt policies that prohibit drug industry gifts and services to physicians, faculty, residents, and students, and to curtail the involvement of industry in continuing medical education activities. The recommendations were part of a new AAMC report, “Industry Funding of Medical Education,” unanimously approved by the association’s Executive Council. In adopting the report, the AAMC’s leadership urged all association members to implement policies and procedures, consistent with the report’s guidelines, by July 1, 2009.

The report was the result of a 14-month effort by an AAMC task force, established in 2006, to examine the benefits and pitfalls associated with industry funding of medical education, and to develop principles, recommendations, and guidelines to help medical schools and teaching hospitals better manage their relationships with industry. The panel was chaired by retired Merck Chairman and CEO Roy Vagelos, M.D., and the vice chair was William Danforth, M.D., former chancellor of Washington University. The task force membership included institutional leaders, faculty, residents, students, CEOs from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device industries, ethicists, and public representatives.

“Interactions between industry and academic medicine are vital to public health,” said AAMC President and CEO Darrell G. Kirch, M.D. “But they must be principled partnerships effectively managed to sustain public trust in both partners’ commitment to patient welfare and the improvement of health care. The recommendations outlined in this report provide essential guidance for how medical schools and teaching hospitals can achieve this important goal.”

Mounting scientific evidence indicates that gifts, favors, and other marketing activities, both explicit and implicit, prejudice independent judgment in unconscious ways. In order to minimize the likelihood of biased decisions by academic physicians, establish an influence-free culture for medical students, residents and other trainees, and optimize the benefits inherent in the principled relationships between medical education and industry, the report proposes that academic medical centers:

  • Establish and implement policies that prohibit the acceptance of any gifts from industry by physicians, faculty, students and residents on- or off-site
  • Eliminate the receipt of drug samples or manage their distribution via a centralized process that ensures timely patient access throughout the health care system
  • Restrict access by pharmaceutical representatives to individual physicians by confining visits to nonpatient areas and holding them by appointment only
  • Set up a central continuing medical education (CME) office to receive and coordinate the distribution of industry support for CME activities
  • Strongly discourage participation by faculty in industry-sponsored speakers’ bureaus
  • Prohibit physicians, residents, and students from allowing presentations of any kind to be ghostwritten by industry representatives.

While all medical schools and teaching hospitals do not yet have strong polices governing their interactions with the drug and device industries, many are working to develop them, and a number of academic medical centers have implemented such policies in the past few years, including University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; Stanford University School of Medicine; University of California, Davis, School of Medicine; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; and Yale University School of Medicine.

Posted in drugs, professionalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Health Centre Food – Not Healthy

Posted by Colin Rose on July 30, 2008

Drs Freedhoff and Stevenson are trying to do what we tried to do more than 20 years ago, change the food policies of hospitals. We have encountered all the same excuses listed below. What has taken us many years to accept and what these doctors fail to realize is that hospitals have no interest in promoting or maintaining health; they exist exclusively to treat disease. If the population were as healthy as they could be by continual vigilance in lifestyle choices there would be very little need for hospitals. Health is not profitable and will not support massive “health care” bureaucracies and unions. From the point of view of the “health care” bureaucracy and “health care” unions the ideal situation is to have a chronically sick but breathing population in constant need of “health care”, profitably supplied by said bureaucracies and unions.

Most hospital have now changed there names to some variation on “health center” and medical systems now call themselves “health care” providers, implying that only these institutions can guarantee health. Whenever I hear this I think or Orwell’s 1984. “War is Peace”; “Disease is Health”. Newspeak can exist in democracies in which self-perpetuating bureaucracies must ensure their survival by thought control and fear of death.

———————————————————

CMAJ • July 29, 2008; 179

Frying up hospital cafeteria food

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ont.

Rob Stevenson, MD, Cardiologist, Saint John Regional Hospital, Saint John, NB

Would you like fries with that angioplasty?” Sadly, this is not as far fetched as you might imagine. Although hospitals are the front line for delivering medical treatment, health promotion and education, paradoxically, the foods they sell are frequently generic versions of fast food staples or, worse yet, brand-name fast food. Remarkably, despite nutrition’s indisputable role as one of our most important determinants of health,1 grassroots calls for hospital cafeteria reform often face resistance from hospital administrators and even some allied health professionals.

In dialogue with hospital administrators, we have met 3 main arguments against hospital cafeteria reform. First, they say they are not the “food police.” The hospital’s role need not be one of policing but rather one of health care leadership. Simply put, the sale of unhealthy foods along with the absence of nutritious alternatives undermine the institution’s role in health promotion. Although we do not propose that hospitals be held accountable for dietary choices, we do feel hospitals have a strong societal obligation to lead by example.

Second, public and institutional sentiment holds that adults are responsible for their own food choices. Consequently some people wonder whether hospitals should be restricted to selling exclusively healthy food. Although this argument has merit,what is not debatable is a hospital’s duty to empower consumers with the information required to make informed choices. Unfortunately, restaurant food choice is anything but informed. Consumers underestimate by 2 to 4 times the saturated fat, calories and sodium content of typical restaurant foods.2 However, providing accurate point-of-sale nutritional information significantly improves consumers’ choices.2 As it stands, with limited or no in-hospital nutritional information available, and frequently no nutritious alternatives offered, hospitals do not enable informed choice.

Finally, there is the question of money. Although Canadian hospitals have fewer fast-food outlets than US centres,3 the transition of their cafeterias from services to institutional profit centres is evident. We have even heard it forewarned that hospital programs could be jeopardized if healthier foods fail to sell. This alarmist warning ignores 2 of a hospital’s most important roles: the mission to promote health and the moral obligation to lead by example. Notably, in its 2007 annual report, the Compass Group, one of the world’s market leaders in retail food service delivery, including hospitals, attributed part of its rising profits to its new focus on healthy eating programs.4

Although there are no established criteria for healthy hospital cafeterias, there are healthy initiatives. California’s Sutter General Hospital enables informed choice by posting the nutritional information for a week’s worth of entrees at the cafeteria entrance. Others serve healthy choices with predominantly vegetarian menus, and there are “farm produce to hospital” programs in Texas, Vermont, North Carolina and Iowa.5 The purpose of the recently launched Canadian Healthy Hospital Cafeteria Project Survey, which one of us (R.S.) helped develop, is to identify Canadian examples of such initiatives.6

Addressing this problem will require a shift in values and thinking similar to when hospitals stopped selling cigarettes and later banned smoking on hospital grounds. Today the majority of our adult population is overweight or obese. In this fight, our dietary environment is the new battleground. Junk food is the new tobacco. Now more than ever, it is our ethical and medical responsibility to ensure that hospitals take the lead in serving foods that reflect evidence-based nutrition.

Thus, we call upon all hospitals as community health care leaders to immediately enable healthy and informed choices in their cafeterias. This would include ensuring the availability of flavourful entrees free of trans fats and low in calories, sodium and saturated fat, as well as posting nutritional information on menu boards and at point-of-sale for all foods. These first steps in cafeteria reform will help hospitals renew their focus on health and put an end to deep-fried hypocrisy.

  1. Kant AK, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Dietary patterns predict mortality in a national cohort: The national health interview surveys, 1987 and 1992. J Nutr 2004;134:1793-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Burton S, Creyer EH, Kees J, et al. Attacking the obesity epidemic: the potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants. Am J Public Health 2006;96:1669-75.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. McDonald CM, Karamlou T, Wengle JG, et al. Nutrition and exercise environment available to outpatients, visitors and staff in children’s hospitals in Canada and the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160:900-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Compass Group. Delivering profitable growth: annual report 2007. Surrey (UK): The Group; 2007. Available: www.compass-group.com/NR/rdonlyres/00F11551-A102-4E1C-AADD-D0DCFD95C723/0/Compass_Report_2007.pdf (accessed 2008 June 23).
  5. Gottlieb R, Shaffer A. Soda bans, farm-to-school, and fast food in hospitals: an agenda for action. Presentation at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2002 Nov 13. Available: http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/publications/APHA_Talk.htm (accessed 2008 June 23).
  6. Canadian Healthy Hospital Cafeteria Project Survey. [To complete the survey go to www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=CMsk1a3OrVFrbBABU6udgQ_3d_3d (accessed 2008 June 23)].

George Orwell predicted this. "Hospital" is antithetical to the "Health". "Health Centre" implies a protective, nurturing bureaucracy. No one will get sick there.

 

IMG_0194

Vending machines in the McGill University Health (sic) Center

MUHC

Partners in Disease Care. Healthy lifestyles are also not good for union employment.

Posted in diet, professionalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »