From Mr M. C. Harvey, MRPharmS
In your meeting report from the 15th International Social Pharmacy Workshop, “Disease-mongering is big business: it sells sickness and promotes drugs”, there is another cynical attack on the pharmaceutical industry (PJ, 9 August 2008, p168).
Illnesses or diseases such as attention deficit disorder, female sexual dysfunction and fungal nail infections are cited as examples of the industry “mongering” diseases to sell its products. Mongering is often used as a word to describe some undesirable or discreditable trade. The older version, eg, ironmongers, fishmongers, are more credible. In the article, I fancy the former usage is intended.
These illnesses described are real. Just ask the sufferers and their families. The drug industry is providing relief from this suffering in many cases and it is perfectly right and proper that they should research, develop and market treatments for these diseases.
Pharmacists, in particular, should be pleased with this — they have something to offer their patients and to profit upon.
The marketing mix of many large companies depends upon the sales of such products to provide them with revenue to develop drugs for more serious diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
It is bizarre how the pharmacy profession is repeatedly attacking the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Mike Harvey
Chichester, West Sussex
The industry’s role
From Mr S. J. Goundrey-Smith, MRPharmS
As someone who has worked in medical affairs in the pharmaceutical industry, I was pleased to see Ross Carroll’s Article reviewing the role of the industry in providing medical information to patients in the forthcoming years. This article helpfully sets the issues concerning medical information in its sociopolitical and economic context.
I was especially interested in Mr Carroll’s thoughts on the use of information technology for improving patient compliance and communications, for example, the use of “intelligent” packaging to monitor compliance and storage conditions.
The technologies he describes are akin to the telemedicine modalities. However, while these technologies are to be strived for, I believe that they are a long way from reality at present and are unlikely to be implemented before 2020. Key barriers to implementation include the development of appropriate data standards for such technologies, the co-ordination of stakeholders (pharmaceutical manufacturers, packaging producers and software vendors) in such development projects, regulatory issues and, ultimately, the acceptance of such technologies by healthcare professionals and patient groups.
However, initiatives such as these give an indication of the ways in which pharmacists in the NHS and in the pharmaceutical industry can work in partnership to improve patient care. Given the scepticism with which the industry is viewed by certain parts of the pharmacy profession, such a partnership is an important goal in itself, regardless of the technological obstacles to be surmounted in the initiatives which might support it.
Stephen Goundrey-SmithBanbury, Oxfordshire