dc-hdr

Defending Medscape

in Uncategorized | one response

Dr. RW comes to their defense: “Where did we get the mindset that educational content must be judged primarily on the basis of who paid for it?”

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Supremacy Claus
The mind set is that of the left wing ideologue gotcha technique. I spent a month on Carlat’s blog demanding an instance of inappropriate patient care attributable to sponsored event. I gave up. If the criticism persists in the absence of a fact of harm, that has a name. Bias. Hate speech.
The response will ultimately be legalistic. The AMA considered a ban on sponsored events proposed their ethics council.
They were promised an injunction and a class action lawsuit. They saw the light.
Carlat may serve on an APA committee to review the question of industry sponsorship for psychiatrists ethics. If they do not back off, they get the same as the AMA.
The parties on the left all have conflict of interest and hypocrisy problems. Carlat, the AMA, Harvard, the NEJM, med schools all provide CME and would be enriched by a ban. Senator Grassley is a paid off running dog attacking drug company sponsorship on behalf of his masters, Independence Blue Cross.
The opposite of this mindset is freedom. No one is forced to be in a sponsored program. No one is forced to avoid a sponsored program. This is not normative. This is the law. The First Amendment Free Speech Clause is a coin. There is the freedom to speak. And, there is the lesser known, but established freedom to hear speech.

Previous post: "Fashionable" cancers

Next post: Goodbye Graham

dc-ftr