Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Corporate Malfeasance

  1. Top | #1
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81

    Corporate Malfeasance

    If you think the drug your doctor is prescribing has been approved for your ailment, guess again. That may not be true.

    If you think the drug your doctor prescribed is the best drug for your problem, guess again. That may not be true.

    Here are just a few of the recent settlements from drug manufacturers. Billion dollar settlements.

    Off label promotion and kickbacks to doctors are a common practice in the corporate world of pharmaceutical sales.

    Corporations are not your friend.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_settlements

    Are there any other examples of massive corporate malfeasance?

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    4,987
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    If you think the drug your doctor is prescribing has been approved for your ailment, guess again. That may not be true.

    If you think the drug your doctor prescribed is the best drug for your problem, guess again. That may not be true.

    Here are just a few of the recent settlements from drug manufacturers. Billion dollar settlements.

    Off label promotion and kickbacks to doctors are a common practice in the corporate world of pharmaceutical sales.

    Corporations are not your friend.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_settlements

    Are there any other examples of massive corporate malfeasance?
    Good Heavens! Are you trying to allege that corporations primary duty is to maximize profit? I hope that you can generate proof for such an outrageous claim!

  3. Top | #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,494
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,246
    Rep Power
    100
    Are you trying to suggest that off-label use is evidence of medical misconduct?

    Consider, https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_tamsulosin_flomax/drugs-condition.htm. It's the first-line treatment for a kidney stone that is small enough to pass.

    It's approved use is benign prostatic hyperplasia--the enlarged prostate that eventually happens to all men. The docs realized it has the same effect on the ureters that take the urine from the kidneys to the bladder as it has on the urethra that takes the urine from the bladder on out.

    Is it approved for kidney stones? No. Do I have a problem with having been prescribed it? No. Why should the drug companies spend the time and money to show what the docs already figured out? Besides, I can see ethical problems with even doing the trial--the control patients should get the normal standard of care for the situation--but that's the very drug they would be testing. How do you even do the trial?

    There's also the problem with how to get volunteers. Kidney stones are an acute condition, a patient who presents with a kidney stone isn't going to be in shape to consent to a medical trial even if they haven't been given pain drugs.

    There have been a very few medical trials that have been done on a basis of if you live in the area you're deemed consenting if you don't opt out. Those are for extreme situations in the emergency room where the standard of care has a pretty poor outcome, though.

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Good Heavens! Are you trying to allege that corporations primary duty is to maximize profit? I hope that you can generate proof for such an outrageous claim!
    Your justification for criminal behavior is noted.

    When doctors become nothing more than profit seeking capitalists they have abandoned the practice of medicine and no longer serve their fellow man.

    Prescribing drugs because you get a kickback for doing it is unethical and illegal.

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Are you trying to suggest that off-label use is evidence of medical misconduct?

    Consider, https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_tamsulosin_flomax/drugs-condition.htm. It's the first-line treatment for a kidney stone that is small enough to pass.

    It's approved use is benign prostatic hyperplasia--the enlarged prostate that eventually happens to all men. The docs realized it has the same effect on the ureters that take the urine from the kidneys to the bladder as it has on the urethra that takes the urine from the bladder on out.

    Is it approved for kidney stones? No. Do I have a problem with having been prescribed it? No. Why should the drug companies spend the time and money to show what the docs already figured out? Besides, I can see ethical problems with even doing the trial--the control patients should get the normal standard of care for the situation--but that's the very drug they would be testing. How do you even do the trial?

    There's also the problem with how to get volunteers. Kidney stones are an acute condition, a patient who presents with a kidney stone isn't going to be in shape to consent to a medical trial even if they haven't been given pain drugs.

    There have been a very few medical trials that have been done on a basis of if you live in the area you're deemed consenting if you don't opt out. Those are for extreme situations in the emergency room where the standard of care has a pretty poor outcome, though.
    Off label use is something doctors can do. If they have some evidence to use it.

    It is not something drug manufacturers can legally promote.

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    When you look at the ethical nature of an institution and find patterns of widespread illegality you can conclude that the institution has no moral foundations of limitations.

    The corporation is an unethical institution.

    Last edited by untermensche; 06-06-2021 at 12:28 AM.

  7. Top | #7
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,494
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,246
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Are you trying to suggest that off-label use is evidence of medical misconduct?

    Consider, https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_tamsulosin_flomax/drugs-condition.htm. It's the first-line treatment for a kidney stone that is small enough to pass.

    It's approved use is benign prostatic hyperplasia--the enlarged prostate that eventually happens to all men. The docs realized it has the same effect on the ureters that take the urine from the kidneys to the bladder as it has on the urethra that takes the urine from the bladder on out.

    Is it approved for kidney stones? No. Do I have a problem with having been prescribed it? No. Why should the drug companies spend the time and money to show what the docs already figured out? Besides, I can see ethical problems with even doing the trial--the control patients should get the normal standard of care for the situation--but that's the very drug they would be testing. How do you even do the trial?

    There's also the problem with how to get volunteers. Kidney stones are an acute condition, a patient who presents with a kidney stone isn't going to be in shape to consent to a medical trial even if they haven't been given pain drugs.

    There have been a very few medical trials that have been done on a basis of if you live in the area you're deemed consenting if you don't opt out. Those are for extreme situations in the emergency room where the standard of care has a pretty poor outcome, though.
    Off label use is something doctors can do. If they have some evidence to use it.

    It is not something drug manufacturers can legally promote.
    I'm saying you went too far in saying the doctors are doing something wrong in off-label use.

    I do agree that drug companies shouldn't be promoting off-label use, but I'd like to see the drug information pages updated to show common off-label uses.

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Are you trying to suggest that off-label use is evidence of medical misconduct?

    Consider, https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_tamsulosin_flomax/drugs-condition.htm. It's the first-line treatment for a kidney stone that is small enough to pass.

    It's approved use is benign prostatic hyperplasia--the enlarged prostate that eventually happens to all men. The docs realized it has the same effect on the ureters that take the urine from the kidneys to the bladder as it has on the urethra that takes the urine from the bladder on out.

    Is it approved for kidney stones? No. Do I have a problem with having been prescribed it? No. Why should the drug companies spend the time and money to show what the docs already figured out? Besides, I can see ethical problems with even doing the trial--the control patients should get the normal standard of care for the situation--but that's the very drug they would be testing. How do you even do the trial?

    There's also the problem with how to get volunteers. Kidney stones are an acute condition, a patient who presents with a kidney stone isn't going to be in shape to consent to a medical trial even if they haven't been given pain drugs.

    There have been a very few medical trials that have been done on a basis of if you live in the area you're deemed consenting if you don't opt out. Those are for extreme situations in the emergency room where the standard of care has a pretty poor outcome, though.
    Off label use is something doctors can do. If they have some evidence to use it.

    It is not something drug manufacturers can legally promote.
    I'm saying you went too far in saying the doctors are doing something wrong in off-label use.

    I do agree that drug companies shouldn't be promoting off-label use, but I'd like to see the drug information pages updated to show common off-label uses.
    I never said doctors are doing something wrong by using drugs for off label use. I said they easily could be.

    But if they are prescribing some drug off label because of a kickback you may not ever know it.

    It is definitely illegal for a drug manufacturer to promote or reward off label use.

    And many corporations are clearly criminal enterprises.

    They must by law behave as sociopathic psychopaths. Watch the video.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Midwestern USA
    Posts
    1,879
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Good Heavens! Are you trying to allege that corporations primary duty is to maximize profit? I hope that you can generate proof for such an outrageous claim!
    Your justification for criminal behavior is noted.

    When doctors become nothing more than profit seeking capitalists they have abandoned the practice of medicine and no longer serve their fellow man.

    Prescribing drugs because you get a kickback for doing it is unethical and illegal.
    Perhaps your sarcasm detector needs new batteries?
    Tom

  10. Top | #10
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by TomC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Good Heavens! Are you trying to allege that corporations primary duty is to maximize profit? I hope that you can generate proof for such an outrageous claim!
    Your justification for criminal behavior is noted.

    When doctors become nothing more than profit seeking capitalists they have abandoned the practice of medicine and no longer serve their fellow man.

    Prescribing drugs because you get a kickback for doing it is unethical and illegal.
    Perhaps your sarcasm detector needs new batteries?
    Tom
    No sarcasm there.

    The profit motive works under the assumption that all players obey the law.

    Economic systems are based on the lawful action of players. Unlawful actors are locked up. If you are big enough you just get a fine.

    That is the only ethical profit.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •