April 29, 2007
Psychiatrist Indicted
Psychiatrist Indicted
This is a case of a doctor prescribing a psychiatric drug for off-label
uses, and accepting payments from drug companies for speeches promoting such
uses. According to the article the practice is illegal. (Alex Berenson,
"Indictment of Doctor Tests Drug Marketing Rules," New York Times, July 22,
2006)
Harvey Silverglate a prominent Boston civil liberties lawyer says "What
they are doing is criminalizing conduct that is not clearly criminal." That the
doctor is being charged criminally, for protected speech.
Promoting the off-label use may be protected speech, but when the drug is
prescribed, are the patients being given informed consent?
There are many arrogant abuses of psychiatrists, the FDA, and the
pharmaceutical industry. FDA approved drugs sometimes kill unsuspecting persons.
Most abuses are legal through drug industry control of the FDA
and the legislative process. Being legal or protected speech does not make the
drugs safe.
Silverglate may be right about protected speech. One can argue as well that
there is a compelling state interest in curbing his speech, which promotes
off-label uses which are harmful. Due to corruption of the FDA it is no longer
possible to know what is safe.
"Dr. Gleason acknowledges that he received more than $100,000 last year
alone from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xyrem, the narcolepsy drug he has
promoted." I find it outrageous is that he "continues to practice medicine," and
"a public defender [. . .] took over the case after Dr. Gleason determined he
could not afford a private lawyer."
Here is one more example of how wealthy politically connected persons get
taxpayer funded lawyers while persons with no connections get brutalized by
police and private individuals because they lack access to competent attorneys.
What are the standards for taxpayer funded lawyers?
Will this criminal investigation lead to some curbs of the abuses of the
psychiatric industry and their enablers, the drug companies? The FDA and the
Congress appear to be unable to stop the abuses.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
New York Times
Indictment of Doctor Tests Drug Marketing Rules
Alex Berenson
July 22, 2006
At first, Dr. Peter Gleason thought his arrest was a joke.
In the early afternoon of Monday, March 6, half a dozen men in suits surrounded
Dr. Gleason, a Maryland psychiatrist, at a train station on Long Island and
handcuffed him.
"I said, 'Well, this is a gag,' " Dr. Gleason recalled in a recent interview.
"They said, 'No, this isn't.' "
Dr. Gleason, 53, was taken aback because he was arrested, and later charged, for
doing something that has become common among doctors: promoting a drug for
purposes other than those approved by the federal government.
[...]
This is a case of a doctor prescribing a psychiatric drug for off-label
uses, and accepting payments from drug companies for speeches promoting such
uses. According to the article the practice is illegal. (Alex Berenson,
"Indictment of Doctor Tests Drug Marketing Rules," New York Times, July 22,
2006)
Harvey Silverglate a prominent Boston civil liberties lawyer says "What
they are doing is criminalizing conduct that is not clearly criminal." That the
doctor is being charged criminally, for protected speech.
Promoting the off-label use may be protected speech, but when the drug is
prescribed, are the patients being given informed consent?
There are many arrogant abuses of psychiatrists, the FDA, and the
pharmaceutical industry. FDA approved drugs sometimes kill unsuspecting persons.
Most abuses are legal through drug industry control of the FDA
and the legislative process. Being legal or protected speech does not make the
drugs safe.
Silverglate may be right about protected speech. One can argue as well that
there is a compelling state interest in curbing his speech, which promotes
off-label uses which are harmful. Due to corruption of the FDA it is no longer
possible to know what is safe.
"Dr. Gleason acknowledges that he received more than $100,000 last year
alone from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xyrem, the narcolepsy drug he has
promoted." I find it outrageous is that he "continues to practice medicine," and
"a public defender [. . .] took over the case after Dr. Gleason determined he
could not afford a private lawyer."
Here is one more example of how wealthy politically connected persons get
taxpayer funded lawyers while persons with no connections get brutalized by
police and private individuals because they lack access to competent attorneys.
What are the standards for taxpayer funded lawyers?
Will this criminal investigation lead to some curbs of the abuses of the
psychiatric industry and their enablers, the drug companies? The FDA and the
Congress appear to be unable to stop the abuses.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
New York Times
Indictment of Doctor Tests Drug Marketing Rules
Alex Berenson
July 22, 2006
At first, Dr. Peter Gleason thought his arrest was a joke.
In the early afternoon of Monday, March 6, half a dozen men in suits surrounded
Dr. Gleason, a Maryland psychiatrist, at a train station on Long Island and
handcuffed him.
"I said, 'Well, this is a gag,' " Dr. Gleason recalled in a recent interview.
"They said, 'No, this isn't.' "
Dr. Gleason, 53, was taken aback because he was arrested, and later charged, for
doing something that has become common among doctors: promoting a drug for
purposes other than those approved by the federal government.
[...]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment