Bloomberg: Orthopedic-Device Makers Accused of Paying Doctors
It is now officially two weeks before many of you will start packing, polishing up those speeches, checking over the nuances of your policies, all in anticipation of what is by far the best committee of BMUN56. I’m not saying this because of how awesome our chairs are (doesn’t hurt); I’m saying this because I’m very proud of how so many of you grasp these topics. As many of you can attest to, it wasn’t easy to understand. But because you guys wanted to understand the topics, you emailed me, posted comments, and came to my office hours to get a better understanding.
Anywho, these next two weeks will feature A LOT of posts, so be absolutely sure to keep up. I’ll start with an article that isn’t really directly related to our second topic. I do, however, want to see how you guys can tie this news into the committee topic.
By Avram Goldstein
Bloomberg News
Thursday, February 28, 2008; Page D08Four makers of artificial hips and knees paid doctors more than $800 million in royalties and fees in four years to influence their choice of implants, a U.S. investigator told Congress.
The unidentified companies control about three-quarters of the $9.4 billion worldwide market for hips and knees, said Gregory E. Demske, an assistant inspector general at the Health and Human Services Department, at a hearing yesterday of the Senate Special Committee on Aging…
The posts to come will include several intriguing case studies that are somehow related to the issues we will tackle, a distribution of the grades I gave you on your position papers (!) that came in before the research award deadline, and much much more.
I hope you’re as excited as I am.
- Bryan
February 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
This article brings up a very important point. A company or countries recklessness could hurt the entire world. We, the USA, recently were plagued with lead painted toys, which can cause harm to children. These artificial body parts are no different. One thing that we must do is create an international body of regulations, standards, and reviews for the world medicine, so countries and companies can be accountable and that they won’t harm other nations based on their lack of effort.
We have already been hurt in the past, we do not want to see any other country also be crippled by bad products, we must attain high standards that are reachable so that we can not only meet the bar, we can exceed the bar.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
The People’s Republic of China believes that this article serves as a prime example of when monetary motives and scientific fame becomes more important than the well-being of the patients. Ultimately, the motive for medical breakthroughs and discoveries should be the betterment of mankind. It is hard to suggest an international body that would be able to monitor science and the professionals in the business, because of each country and cultures conflicting views. Due to this problem, the People’s Republic of China suggests the possibility of implementing regional bodies, or assisting in implementing nation bodies. Each regulatory body must be relative to that areas’ beliefs.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Lobbying physicians to recommend and/or use specific products is nothing new. The irresistibility of incentives given by such companies cause doctors to not necessarily provide the best means of care to their patients but rather what is most convenient and beneficial to the doctor personally.
The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) are programmes by UNESCO that have already started the process of guiding the international community toward more efficient means of organizing universal bioethics and have projects for regulatory bodies and ethics boards as mentioned by China and United States. Germany feels that rather than focus our energy toward establishing brand new ones that would take more time and more funds, that our committee should look to expand upon what programs such as ABC, GEObs, and EEP in UNESCO have already started.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
That’s very true. The debate (I hope) that you guys will be having will circle around whether you want to strength existing frameworks, create more, or perhaps have none at all.
Keep in mind, I want you all to focus on the question of “how”, not the question of “what.”
March 11th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
The United States of America agrees with what Germany said. There is no need for the creation of new organizations, organizations are out there, we must strengthen existing ones. By doing that, we can also get this done as quickly as possible and as efficiently as possible, all the while having a healthier world.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
The UK supports the idea that organizations need to be strengthened. There are a proposals that the UK has for strengthening these organizations. But the UK also does agree that it would also be beneficial to decompose some existing organizations and redevelop them in better ways.
For example, a member of China’s Food and Drug Administration was convicted of accepting bribes from a pharmaceutical company in order to receive their approval stamp. Obviously, we need to strengthen FDA programs and other programs that fall under this branch.
This can be done a number of ways. The United Kingdom supports the idea of audits and suspending funds from companies that are not following specifc standards that have been set, just as China’s FDA has done. All countries can benfit from these ideas whether they already have a strong FDA or want to develop a strong one.
The link for this article is provided.
http://blogs.webmd.com/clinical-trials/2007/07/chinas-fda-troubles.html