Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (4):807-815 (2010)

Abstract
Through the 1960s, many people claimed that drug advertising was educational and physicians often relied on it. Continuing Medical Education (CME) was developed to provide an alternative. However, because CME relied on grants, industry funders chose the subjects offered. Now policymakers worry that drug firms support CME to promote sales and that commercial support biases prescribing and fosters inappropriate drug use. A historical review reveals parallel problems between advertising and industry-funded CME. To preclude industry influence and improve CME, we should ensure independent funding by taxing medical industries, facilities and physicians. Independent public and professional authorities should create CME curricula. An independent agency should allocate all funds to educational institutions for approved curricula
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00534.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,784
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Professional Societies and Industry Support: What Is the Quid Pro Quo?Jerome P. Kassirer - 2007 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 50 (1):7-17.
Physicians' Conflicts of Interest.Marc A. Rodwin - 1994 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 37 (2):308.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-11-25

Total views
34 ( #324,867 of 2,462,967 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #299,108 of 2,462,967 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes