The recent controversy on EPO is leaving doctors in a no-win situation:
John Glaspy, an oncologist and professor of medicine at UCLA, says that for patients with falling hemoglobin – a critical protein carried by red blood cells — doctors must face a quandary. “When we see a patient whose hemoglobin is falling, there is a theoretical risk if we do something – blood clots and possible effect on survival – and a risk if we don’t do something: transfusions and symptoms like fatigue, shortness of breath and chest pain,”
“Doctors feel concerned and unguided, because the black-box warning makes them feel vulnerable and at risk to be criticized after the fact,” he says. He adds that he doesn’t feel the drugs are commonly over-prescribed.
Ed Silverman thinks it’s about the money. Maybe, but you just have to accept that sometimes medicine is practiced in shades of gray, not black and white.
Related posts:
- Angioplasties in "normals"
- The reassurance workup
- "Daddy . . . I have chest pain"
- Patient satisfaction vs pain relief
- The controversy of no-consent studies
- Lowering blood sugar
- ER crowding and your risk of dying from a heart attack
{ 1 comment }
That’s true, I agree, although that’s also why I labeled my thought as being ‘idealistic.’ I understand there are shadings, of course, although I continue to believe that ties between these influential professional groups and manufacturers can be problematic. It can be hard to know exactly if a group, or individual, is swayed by such links. But if someone doesn’t like the inference, the funding can be declined or the relationship can be altered. Or perhaps the unwanted impression may last. There are gray areas, to be sure, but who is it that allowed the colors to run? Okay, the soap box is going away for the night. Cheers, ed
Comments on this entry are closed.