Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

The New York Times reported today in an article titled, Drug Makers Scrutinized Over Grants, that a congressional investigation of the money that drug companies are given by pharmaceutical companies as educational grants are often steered by marketing executives to doctors and groups who push unapproved uses of drugs. Incredibly, 23 pharmaceutical companies spent a total of $1.47 billion on educational grants.

Unfortunately the committee could not estimate what percentage of the grants are used for marketing purposes. But this underscores a reoccurring problem in patient safety: the fact that with many pharmaceutical products, the drug companies are providing direct or indirect funding to all of the leading doctors in a particular field, the opinion leaders whose views are of interest to the scientific community.

One classic example was with Dr. David Healy who was offer a post in the department of psychiatry in Toronto. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Healy wrote an article in the Hastings Center Reports issue of March 2000. The article referenced the capacity of Prozac to induce suicidality. When the issue of the Hastings Center Reports was published, Lilly withdrew their funding from the Center, citing specifically the Healy article. Eli Lilly, the manufacturers of Prozac, provided significant funding to the University of Toronto. Not surprisingly, the University withdrew their offer of employment. Professor Healy lost his job because he stood up for the rights of patients. After a lawsuit, the University of Toronto settled Dr. Healy's claim.

So the problem is that the drug companies are setting up a paradigm where fewer and fewer reputable doctors have the impartiality to be the first to step up and say that a drug is hurting the people who are using it. This money only buys so much time. Eventually, there are enough good doctors out there that enough will eventually stand up once the evidence that the drug is harmful reaches a critical mass. But, practically, it makes it more difficult for a doctor to stand up and be the first to say a drug or medical device should be taken off the market. As a result, critical time is lost.