GlaxoSmithKline Pleads Guilty To Illegal Drug Marketing; Fined $3 Billion

[Neil]

It is very relevant. Doesn't seem fair to convict someone of a crime they didn't commit.

They're still responsible.  Being the boss is about more than the seven-figure salary and the private jet.  We live in a wonderful time for removing the freedom of action from your subordinates via technology.

[garbon]

Thankfully my physician does the prescribing, not the pharma company. Not so bad if my doc has more information than less.

Corporations are teh evol, docs are teh wholesome and altruistic.  Sure.

Remember Pfizer getting busted for this?  Remember how much fallout there was from doctors that lost their medical licenses over improperly prescribing based on the perks they were getting from their drug reps?

You go to the doctor.  He submits claims to your insurer, who are going to find any and every reason they can not to pay and stick the doctor with a tab on you that may or may not get settled when it goes to collections.  The same doctor gets all kinds of comps from his drug reps; whose interests do you think the doc is going to favor?

Maybe you should get a better physician. I wouldn't go to a physician who didn't think helping me out was important and was willing to give me shitty drugs instead.

[garbon]

It is very relevant. Doesn't seem fair to convict someone of a crime they didn't commit.

They're still responsible.  Being the boss is about more than the seven-figure salary and the private jet.  We live in a wonderful time for removing the freedom of action from your subordinates via technology.

Responsible in a way that they should go to jail?

[Martinus]

It is very relevant. Doesn't seem fair to convict someone of a crime they didn't commit.

They're still responsible.  Being the boss is about more than the seven-figure salary and the private jet.  We live in a wonderful time for removing the freedom of action from your subordinates via technology.

Responsible in a way that they should go to jail?

Depending on the circumstances but it should not be excluded. Bosses can be held criminally responsible if they created an environment (e.g. by failing to implement supervision measures or failing to observe them) in which crime became systemic or unchecked.

[DontSayBanana]

Corporations are teh evol, docs are teh wholesome and altruistic.  Sure.

Remember Pfizer getting busted for this?  Remember how much fallout there was from doctors that lost their medical licenses over improperly prescribing based on the perks they were getting from their drug reps?

You go to the doctor.  He submits claims to your insurer, who are going to find any and every reason they can not to pay and stick the doctor with a tab on you that may or may not get settled when it goes to collections.  The same doctor gets all kinds of comps from his drug reps; whose interests do you think the doc is going to favor?

Maybe you should get a better physician. I wouldn't go to a physician who didn't think helping me out was important and was willing to give me shitty drugs instead.
[/quote]

I don't have a doctor I "go to."  A) I can't afford it, and B) I don't trust anybody, let alone somebody who's going to be so far in debt from school that they're going to desperately need deep pockets to survive.

[garbon]

Depending on the circumstances but it should not be excluded. Bosses can be held criminally responsible if they created an environment (e.g. by failing to implement supervision measures or failing to observe them) in which crime became systemic or unchecked.

Certainly but then I don't see that discussed here. I just see pitchforks and torches.

[garbon]

I don't have a doctor I "go to."  A) I can't afford it, and B) I don't trust anybody, let alone somebody who's going to be so far in debt from school that they're going to desperately need deep pockets to survive.

I'm not really sure what you expect me to say.

[Neil]

It is very relevant. Doesn't seem fair to convict someone of a crime they didn't commit.

They're still responsible.  Being the boss is about more than the seven-figure salary and the private jet.  We live in a wonderful time for removing the freedom of action from your subordinates via technology.

Responsible in a way that they should go to jail?

I think it would depend on the circumstances, but it's certainly a tool in the arsenal.

[DontSayBanana]

I'm not really sure what you expect me to say.

*shrugs* I'm a little paranoid; I'm just surprised that you're showing to be the most trusting individual in this case.

[Martinus]

That being said, in case of a wide-spread practice like that of GSK, I think the onus should be on the bosses to prove that this was a work of some rogue chemists and marketing people and not done with an approval of the management.

In any event, the issue is moot, since the entire corporation got an immunity from prosecution so whoever was responsible will certainly not face any criminal liability in the US.

[garbon]

I'm not really sure what you expect me to say.

*shrugs* I'm a little paranoid; I'm just surprised that you're showing to be the most trusting individual in this case.

Trusting? This isn't a trust issue here but more of a - really do I actually think that most doctors out there want to harm their patients? (Even if that harm just comes in the form of benign neglect and poor treatment plans.)  Of course the news is replete with stories of doctors that got kickbacks and prescribed things they shouldn't have - that's what is exciting and "newsworthy".  That says next to nothing about the actual incidence of "evil" docs.

Besides, I'm not saying that one than slavish follows the orders of one's doctor. Hell, shopping around is an important part of the process.

[garbon]

That being said, in case of a wide-spread practice like that of GSK, I think the onus should be on the bosses to prove that this was a work of some rogue chemists and marketing people and not done with an approval of the management.

You would like them to prove that they didn't tell their marketing people to do so? Short of showing that they have training programs in place to coach people not to promote off-label usages, how would you have them prove this negative proposition?

[DontSayBanana]

Trusting? This isn't a trust issue here but more of a - really do I actually think that most doctors out there want to harm their patients? (Even if that harm just comes in the form of benign neglect and poor treatment plans.)  Of course the news is replete with stories of doctors that got kickbacks and prescribed things they shouldn't have - that's what is exciting and "newsworthy".  That says next to nothing about the actual incidence of "evil" docs.

Besides, I'm not saying that one than slavish follows the orders of one's doctor. Hell, shopping around is an important part of the process.

I'm not suggesting doctors are out to deliberately harm their patients- what I'm saying is that in a perfect world, a doctor's primary focus would be the patient's best interest, and they would defer judgment on prescribing for other than the approved use.  In practice, at least a small amount of doctors have shown an "it couldn't hurt" attitude reinforced by drug reps egging them on and offering perks.

[DontSayBanana]

You would like them to prove that they didn't tell their marketing people to do so? Short of showing that they have training programs in place to coach people not to promote off-label usages, how would you have them prove this negative proposition?

Yes, actually.  When we're talking ultra-massive distribution of international household names like Wellbutrin or Avandia, so much of the company's going to be tied up in marketing that specific product that to believe the CEO isn't going to be looking over marketing's shoulder is, at best, naive.

We're not talking about a niche vaccine that's only being distributed to one affected area in isolation, where the team's just going to get a marketing plan rubber-stamped by the marketing department.

[CountDeMoney]

Who gives a fuck.  Somebody needs to be held accountable. and sometimes they need to be prosecuted.

It is very relevant. Doesn't seem fair to convict someone of a crime they didn't commit.

Well, now that they paid their speeding ticket, we don't have to worry about anybody going to jail now for anything, now do we?