General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Everything reported is strictly legal, just as Hitler’s extermination of the Jews was legal" [View all]HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)want to do is collect information about MDs prescribing practices, then if 100 MDs prescribe drug X for use Y off-label, they can tell their customers "well, there are all these docs using it for Y ^ it's great, why don't you try it too?"
i.e. promoting off-label use *without* clinical trials, without peer review, without any of the usual protections. we *know* that pharma has a documented history of ignoring and hiding adverse events r/t their drugs. this will widen the latitude they have to do this.
i wouldn't take *any* new drug on a bet. i know, from personal experience, that the problem is much bigger than media coverage would give us to believe.
In explaining its decision, the panel cited a US Supreme Court ruling early last year that struck down a highly controversial Vermont law, which restricted the sale of prescription drug info identifying prescribers and patients for commercial marketing purposes. Since then, the pharmaceutical industry has used that ruling to argue off-label promotion is a form of protected speech.
http://www.pharmalot.com/2012/12/free-speech-off-label-conviction-overturned/
what is shocking to me is the use of 'free speech' in the case. it's not a free speech issue; they're using free speech to overturn regulation and consumer protection measures. however imperfect, requirements for research, clinical trials, etc *do* protect consumers.
health care is becoming a cesspool of malpractice.