Search


 
 
Blog : Displaying 977-980 of 1169


Warning: Side Effects May Include Cynicism

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on February 13th, 2008


New Zealand and the U.S. are the only countries in the developed world that allow drug companies to peddle their prescription wares directly to the public. According to the Government Accountability Office, Big Pharma spent $4.2 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising in the U.S. during 2005 - and that already staggering sum is expanding at about 20% per year, which would put it at $7.25 billion in 2008. Lawmakers in several states have attempted to regulate or restrict the practice, mostly unsuccessfully.

Pharma is also eyeing other markets, and has mounted a major lobbying campaign to allow direct-to-consumer ads in Europe and Canada. Last week, the European Commission, which drafts legislation for the European Parliament, announced a public consultation [PDF] about a proposal to allow drug companies to put "non-promotional information" about prescription drugs on radio and television.

Consumers International, which is opposing Pharma's plans with a campaign called Marketing Overdose, had this to say:

By opening the debate on drug company information provision, the EC is kowtowing to pharma industry's demands to advertise directly to consumers. This is the first step towards US-style drug advertising and concepts such as 'Pharma TV'. Prescription drugs are not washing powders and should not be sold as such. The EC must protect the right of European consumers to independent, impartial information about healthcare.

Want a more scholarly assessment? A 2007 study in the Annals of Family Medicine concluded:

Despite claims that ads serve an educational purpose, they provide limited information about the causes of a disease or who may be at risk; they show characters that have lost control over their social, emotional, or physical lives without the medication; and they minimize the value of health promotion through lifestyle changes. The ads have limited educational value and may oversell the benefits of drugs in ways that might conflict with promoting population health.

The Marketing Overdose campaign has produced several short videos - some serious, some spoofs. The drug ads - clearly a tempting target - are also satirized by the U.S. Consumers Union, in the clip embedded here.





Geron's Steadfast Optimism

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on February 12th, 2008


Geron CEO Thomas Okarma

Yesterday at the annual biotechnology industry convention, the CEO of the company hoping to develop the first products from human embryonic stem cell research said that he expects the first clinical trials to begin around June of this year. We've highlighted Geron's Thomas Okarma 's habit of promising these clinical trials "next year" in every year since 2004. What's surprising about his advancing the date to just a few months from now is that the timing is completely out of his hands. Geron has submitted the application to the US Food and Drug Administration to test human embryonic stem cells in 40 patients with spinal cord injuries. The ball is now in court of the federal government.

Does Okarma really believe that the feds will so quickly turn around the first application for human testing of an entirely new method of medicine, a technique that has a track record of producing cancer in lab animals? I consider myself lucky if my 1040EZ gets processed in a few months. An analyst in the CNN story is quoted as saying, "This is the first time that a human embryonic stem cell application is being submitted to the FDA, so there's a good chance that some questions will arise." That's putting it mildly. 

Investors appear to be skeptical as well. Geron's stock value is up only 2% for the day. That will do little to compensate for the dramatic fall it's taken over the last year, in which it lost nearly half its value.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:





File Under: What You Talkiní Bout, Willis?

Posted by Osagie Obasogie on February 11th, 2008


Arnold from Diff'rent Strokes

From a recent Yahoo News story on embryos created with DNA from 3 different people:

"We are not trying to alter genes, we're just trying to swap a small proportion of the bad ones for some good ones," said Patrick Chinnery, a professor of neurogenetics at Newcastle University involved in the research.





Cloning, Children, and Consent

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on February 8th, 2008


There was once a time when I placed much faith in the UK's governance of reproductive and genetic technologies. But after a string of actions that are a mix of the rushed and the unjustified, now I am reluctant to offer the benefit of the doubt. It's not just that the National Heath Service is offering 15,000 pounds ($32,000) to surrogate mothers or approving genetic deselection to avoid congenital squinting. Current proposals would be significant steps in the erosion of the key bioethical principle of informed consent.

The latest moves are considerations by the government to alter the long-debated bill to revise oversight of assisted reproduction and research with embryos. Under the its current version, tissue donors must consent for their cells to be used in cloning-based stem cell research, and children must be "competent" in order to give consent. This makes sense, even beyond the typical goals of informed consent: The cloning process raises novel questions, and many potential research subjects will be opposed to the creation of embryonic clones of themselves. Furthermore, if a stem cell line were to be successfully derived through this technique, the subject's genetic material could be propagated and spread throughout the world, raising concerns of genetic privacy.

Some researchers, though, are pressuring for two changes, both of which are under consideration. One would allow cloning research using banked tissues whose donors did not give consent for their cells to be used in that manner. And under the other, the requirement for the "competence" of the child would be removed. It is unclear from news reports if the child's consent would be presumed, or would need to be obtained from the parents.

(Using an unfortunately common tactic, the advocates for this change cite the medical necessity of cloning-based stem cell research in a way that distorts the fact that no stem cell lines have yet been derived in this manner. This language is not only unchallenged by the media, but is parroted.)

Regardless, there is a clear trend on both sides of the Atlantic in bioethics rhetoric, recommendations, and policy. The potential benefits of research are increasingly seen as more important than the need to obtain informed consent.

In the United Kingdom, for example, Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently proposed that consent for postmortem organ donation be presumed. And here in the US, a panel of the esteemed Institute of Medicine recommended that prisoners be "permitted" to participate in clinical trials. The former was shot down amid a barrage of criticism, but the latter proposal seems to have traction, despite the fact that true voluntary consent by prisoners is essentially impossible due to institutionalized power relations.

Of course, these are examples of a common tension within bioethics. But there are strong reasons, many of which are historical, that the first sentence of the Nuremberg Code is, "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential."

Previously on Biopolitical Times:


Displaying 977-980 of 1169  
< Prev  Next >> 
« First Page Last Page » 
« Show Complete List » 

 


ESPAÑOL | PORTUGUÊS | Русский

home | overview | blog | publications | about us | donate | newsletter | press room | privacy policy

CGS • 1936 University Ave, Suite 350, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA • • (p) 1.510.625.0819 • (F) 1.510.665.8760