> I am a health journalist who recently wrote about Evidence-based
> Medicine and remain very interested in the topic.
Perhaps, PJ Noonan, this would be a good topic for you take to the
Guardian for their campaign against bad science. Hopefully you will
earn a useful penny or two at the same time as doing some good.
Yes, the rest of it is rubbish. The arguments presented are much more
a reason why we shouldn't trust doctors (shock horror) to make
individualistic decisions and why we should provide doctors with a
properly examined evidence base such as Cochrane on which they can
rely. However, I think PJ Noonan's suggestion that we don't ignore
this is correct. While a head on denial might draw unwarranted
attention to this nonsense a more general public information campaign
explaining the whys and hows of EBM would surely be useful.
My background is farming. The farming organizations, farmers in
general, have tried ignoring the claptrap coming from self-
promotionists with nothing useful to say. It has not worked. A useful
sector of society has been left with a stained and tarnished image,
struggling to provide food while profits disappear and outside
influences load us with encumberances meant to prove what we are
doing is "good".
Mike.
> I receive lots of
> press releases about medical developments from various organizations
> but was surprised to see an anti-EBM news release -- the first I can
> ever recall seeing -- in my email inbox. (I do not know how I came to
> be on the sender's mailing list.)
>
> I thought this news release might be of interest to members of the EBH
> list, if not for its content as a tip-sheet to help EBM/EBH proponents
> develop arguments to counter such claims.
>
> The news release is also online at this URL. The full text (PDF)
> report also may be downloaded from this site:
> _http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22179_
> (http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22179)
>
> Here is a copy of the release/abstract text:
>
> >>
>
> Research & Commentary: Evidence-Based MedicineWritten By: Heartland
> Staff Published In: Research & Commentary Publication Date: October
> 15, 2007 Publisher: The Heartland Institute
>
>
> ____________________________________
>
> Abstract:
> The relationship between doctors and their patients is very special.
> Patients trust their doctors to keep private their personal medical
> histories, diagnose conditions and prescribe medicines based on an
> astounding knowledge of biology and chemistry, and literally save
> lives on a daily basis. Some policymakers, most with no background in
> medicine, seem to want to insert themselves between doctors and their
> patients. These policymakers claim " evidence-based medicine"
> (EBM) can reduce health care spending and ensure consistent, quality
> care. EBM asserts medical research published in peer-reviewed journals
> ought to overrule the medical judgments of individual doctors. A new
> Research & Commentary collection from The Heartland Institute outlines
> the pitfalls of EBM. Inside you will learn:
> * A surprising amount of published medical research-"most"
> of it,
> according to one prominent researcher-is false;
> * EBM guidelines are drawn from large population averages and
> cannot
> reliably provide clarity regarding which treatments prove most
> beneficial for individual patients; and
> * EBM has been used in Europe as a gateway to expanding the role
> of
> government in health care by providing a seemingly objective basis for
> rationing care. Itīs already starting to be used this way in the
> U.S., as illustrated in Medicareīs recent decision (now being
> challenged) to limit patientsī access to anemia drugs. <<
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's new at
> http://www.aol.com
>
|