Advances in medical device technology have been major contributors to improved longevity and increased quality of life for patients. Unfortunately, damaging “conflict-of-interest myths” are hampering medical progress in general and device development in particular. Conflict-of-interest myths falsely debase the medical products industry and healthcare professionals who interact with it. And the real victims of this ill-conceived crusade are patients.
Here’s why we should encourage device development: Replacement of degenerated hips with prostheses now rapidly returns previously disabled pain sufferers to their athletic activities. The hips came first, but now knee, elbow and other prostheses have become available and are constantly improving. A frequent complication of heart diseases is compromise of the electrical circuitry that governs our hearts’ normal “lub-dub” pumping that keeps our blood circulating.
When I was in medical training 50 years ago cumbersome boxes with attached paddles that could be applied to patients’ chests in order to deliver electrical currents and restore the circuitry had just appeared, and users had to be careful not to electrocute themselves. Now, far simpler and safer “AED” devices that anyone can use are ubiquitous in public places. Implanted current sensors and emitters that automatically allow patients with heart disease to survive without seeking — possibly too late — hospital intervention for heartbeat deviations. When I was in training, we had no way to restore circulation to a heart compromised by having its arteries blocked, thereby preventing delivery of oxygen-carrying blood. Today, we have artery-opening “stents” that not only restore but also preserve — by releasing artery-protective drugs — the life-saving blood circulation.
Here are two of the conflict-of-interest myths that compromise device progress: One is that when medical product companies pay healthcare professionals for research or education activities, the payees shed concerns for their reputations and perform flawed research and inappropriately biased teaching to please commercial sponsors. Almost no evidence supports this myth and, in fact, partnerships between industry and medicine are responsible for most clinical advances, especially device invention. Yet accommodation of the myth has engendered regulations in medical schools limiting and banning such partnerships.
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1NwgbwC
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment