hi my nmae is bob i am at school right now. this website did not help me with what i need to do. my friedn billy is mad i hate this website. thank you have a nivr day.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

My biggest concern while reading both of these articles is the lack of self-efficacy in the patients and the patients caregivers. Why would, in the example that was given in the first article, the mother complain about the side effects of a drug made for an adult schizophrenic, but then put her kid on a experimental drug? (80)

Also why doesn't the FDA monitor drug trials and experimenting more closely. Should there be a limit on the number of drug trials each year so that they may be monitored for safety? (83)

And why is Minnesota the only state concerned with the number of kick-backs and money that "big pharma" gives doctors? Do state governments benefit from these "gifts" as well? (82)

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I forgot to sign in so the post showed up as anonymous instead of under my name.

The Best American Science Writing 2008, Pg. 78- Should behavior modification drugs be available as a first option for parents, or should parents show they have tried other options before medicating their children?

The Best American Science Writing 2008, Pg. 86 – Do doctors or drug companies hold the responsibility of overprescribing medicine? Should people be responsible for doing research on the drugs they are prescribed?

The Best American Science Writing 2008, Pg. 78 – What other kinds of drugs could be prescribed overzealously by doctors? What influences doctors to prescribe these drugs at such a high rate?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

1) According to Harris and Roberts, the FDA is beholden to the drug-makers to disclose falsified clinical trials (1% of the total trials is inspected); the drug-makers rely on doctors to report their own outstanding convictions and sanctions; and in the nation, Minnesota is the only state to make records public: how can we fix the ethical oversight of drug research? Considering that Minnesota is the only state to release records, is oversight a federal concern?
2) Ought the FDA to conduct its own parallel trials? Is there a problem methodologically with how drugs are approved? Should such a great deal of authority be granted to companies who are investing in and developing a product for competitive markets?
3) Upon prescribing a drug, should doctors who are "underwritten" by drug-makers be held legally responsible to a "full disclosure" of their interests? From a practical, societal standpoint, might this improve transparency or obfuscate a doctor's motives considering his status as a technician of specialized knowledge? Does the cost of information in the medical industry become prohibitive to consumers when each doctor's opinion must be necessarily approached skeptically?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Isn't paying a doctor to prescribe a company's drug seem unethical? Shouldn't the doctors prescribe certain kinds of medicine, not ones they are getting paid to prescribe?

Aren't there legal issues that can arise if harmful side effects of a drug harm the patient?

How can you really tell, test, or measure if payments influence doctor's prescribing habits?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

This article is making it sound like the psychiatrist is the only person at fault. If I'm a parent I'm going to do some research on a drug before I let my kid take it. Why didn't these parents consult another doctor?

Shouldn't doctors have a limitation on the amount of drugs they're allowed to supply? At least if they're "sponsoring" numerous drugs it's clear to me that it's not in the best interest of the patient.

Shouldn't payments from drug companies to doctors be illegal? If you're paying a doctor enough and he has to prescribe the allotted amount of the drug it seems the drug will probably be prescribed for very minor issues that don't neccessarily need it.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

#1 - Do you think think that drug companies paying doctor's for giving lectures is good, bad, or both? Why? (Best American Science Writing of 2008, pg. 76)

#2 - Are doctors today not wary enough about the effects of medicine on children? Why or why not? (Best of American Science Writing of 2008, pg. 80)

#3 - Why aren't more states making their records public like Minnesota? Do you think it would make a difference in this problem? (Best of American Science Writing of 2008, pg. 82)

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

1) What specific records do they mean when they refer to Minnesota's laws in "After Sanctions, Doctors Get Drug Industry Pay"? Should more states follow the path of Minnesota?

2) Do you think it is worth the risk to take a drug knowing the potential side effects? Are there times where the side effect outweighs the importance of controlling the condition? If so, what instances?

3)Does paying doctors for test trial patients play in as a factor for doctors prescribing patients? Does this have a negative effect?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

1. Why did Minnesota decide it needed all pharmaceutical companies to make their financial relationships with doctors public?

2. Many doctors rely on good results from drugs for continued use. Therefore, how can someone say doctors only use particular drugs because their manufacturers pay them?

3. Do pharmaceutical companies not pay enough for good doctors to run experimental trials?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?