According to a 2012 survey in Physician Practice, 29% of physicians in private practice have other jobs, some of which involve the media. There is now a huge population of "virtual patients" whose health and purchasing behaviors are influenced by the increasingly popular group of physicians offering medical advice on the airwaves. What happens when a doctor's job in media-medicine collides with office- or hospital-based medicine? Dr. Mehmet Oz is a case in-point. A recent letter from 10 physicians to the Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons states that Dr. Oz is "guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgments" and that because of this "Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable." Dr. Oz is scheduled to devote a good portion of his on-air show today to rebutting this letter.29% of all private practice physicians do have outside job. What does it mean? Well, to see the picture it is interesting to see how many patients every day or every working day they see in private practice.Then let us take a time spent in office. So, it will give the picture how much time every patent saw doctor. Take off that doctor will make different calls, and answer to the calls, and answer to the questions of staff, and take his on coffee, and so on. As me as patient and I will say, what doctor is doing in room during my visit. Better do not ask, of cause.
Many doctors do have not one office but two or three in different parts of the city. So, it is time of working week how much they spent to see patients.
Many of them work in hospitals. Working in hospital is constant flow of patients supply, they keep this job.
Never forget, they publish books, or simple participate in media or internet discussions. Time.
Now, count all this time, and find out, when and for how long doctor take a look at the patient's chart? Do doctor monitor patient's progress? Do doctor check up if treatment works or not? You must be kidding! Where this time will come from? There are only 24 hours circle. Doctor scarcely has time to groom itself for the next show., regardless it is on media, TV, hospital or in office.
Why Dr. Oz is so popular? Someone of us go to Opera. Opera is Social event, and every prominent member of society, Noble Member of society 'must see' the premier, or Star-Singer, and of cause show - up own intelligence. Dr. Oz show is the same but for different class of our society. The same as we watch TV with Soup Opera, and some members of our society 'spy' for celebrities. This is social entertaining, no any connection with medicine. Every one intelligent person know it very well and no one will go to the Dr. Oz show. Take a look at who are in show? what they are doing in front of cameras? That's right, 5 min own fame. No one intelligent person wish to be in company of those people show-up own fat in middle area. This is simple DISGUSTING!
Still, we read on-line articles published by Anne Peters and others. All our bookstores full out with books how to reverse diabetes type 2. More then that, in every clinic with every visit every one of us do have this education, how to get diabetes -free with low carb diet and calorie counting. If so, then say me, why Dr.Oz under such hot waters? He is not different then any other charlatan.
Take a look at the ADA website. What they suggest? They loudly announced that Starvation Diet is Cure for Diabetes type 2. Is this possible that Starvation diet will Cure diabetes type 2? Don't they know what is true and where is profit? Millions in donations, and how wise it spent? Education for diabetics how to eat and how to count what never have meaning. Simple and brilliant. With this philosophy they never out of profit, and millions after millions drops to their disposal.
Dr. Oz does not have authority to to recommend any treatment. ADA is Number One authority for every doctor how to treat diabetics type 2. Really, why there are no any petitions to stop this scam?
It can be seen that I am in position to protect Dr. Oz, I am not. But it is not Dr. Oz who put green beans into shopping bag and force victim to pay for it. Long before victim of Dr. Oz come to his show the Medical Industry done brain washing and put victims into greedy hands of Dr. Oz. What do I have in my medical treatment routine? Weight loss surgery is Number One to get diabetes type 2 free. Sure, no blood, no sugar. 100% satisfactions guarantee. Metformin. To get effect of this medicine diabetic must take it at least one month before effect will be seen. Whom they fool? And finally, Invocana, strongest diuretic, best way to speed sugar out of blood and guarantee speedy way to the heart failure stroke, and thrombosis.
With all treatment for diabetes type 2, less insulin till finally there is no insulin at all, and more life style modifications, cost effective way to get rid of American Aging Population, heart attacks, heart disease, stroke, COPD, on the top of the Death list. Who are in first row on this list? Diabetics type 2. Life Style Modifications 100% Satisfaction. Is Columbia Medical School different in diabetes type 2 treatment? Not at all. The money does not smell. Weight loss surgery is very profitable way to treat diabetics type 2. Before we gone, there is money Fall, just take care to collect it.
The difficulty in resolving the dilemma of Dr. Oz raises other more important issues. Specifically, we need to re-evaluate the roles of the health sciences and government in broadcast medicine and what are the responsibilities of media physicians to their patients? The American Medical Association issues guidelines for physician professionalism in social media that focus on privacy, but eschews recommendations regarding doctors' responsibilities in public. A scientist presenting clinical trial results at an academic conference is required to disclose conflicts of interest, medication side-effects and contraindications, and to distinguish evidence-based from hypothetical applications. Doesn't the burgeoning population of virtual patients deserve similar consideration from physicians generating virtual prescriptions?
Our governmental regulations regarding obscenity and commercial speech specifically state that radio and television receives "less than full protection" under the First Amendment. Stringent broadcast scrutiny with restrictions when necessary could be applied to protect public health against physician recommendations of treatments without clear disclosure regarding their possible side effects and true substantiated efficacy. An independent supervisory body functioning as an FDA regarding alternative medicine, similar to the German Commission E,would significantly curtail outrageous claims of miracle cures and would also support better utilization and understanding of alternative, non-western medicine by identifying the contexts in which it is effective scientifically rather than empirically.
Non-evidence based medical recommendations presented without the appropriate caveats are costly and potentially harmful. However, unless these foibles can be shown to render Dr. Oz inadequate or ineffective at Columbia, there is no justification for forcing him to resign from a well-earned position in academic medicine.Regulatory guidance addressing the tension between his two positions is potentially a far better solution that could result in improved health care both in the doctor's office and in the media. What happens to Dr. Oz is less important than what happens to us, as virtual patients, going forward. We recognize that any outside intrusion into the public space can become invasive rather than therapeutic, but the expanding influence of Professors of Media-Medicine on public health mandates this discussion.
We support Columbia's commitment to faculty freedom of expressionin public discussion with the caveat that physicians offering medical advice carry a great responsibility for honesty and accuracy to the public and their peers.(see last sentence in article for position) The medical and legislative communities give insufficient scrutiny to media-medicine. Barring such scrutiny, Dr. Oz might begin each program with a simple disclaimer: "The opinions expressed on this program may not be evidence-based or part of accepted medical practice and have no endorsement from Columbia University."
Michael Rosenbaum, MD; professor of Pediatrics and Medicine at Columbia University Medical Center
Joan Bregstein, MD; associate professor of Pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center
Dana March, PhD; assistant professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center
Michelle Odlum, PhD, MPH, DEd; Provost's Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Columbia University School of Nursing
Elizabeth Oelsner, MD; instructor in Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center
Katherine Shear, MD; Marion E. Kenworthy professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University School of Social Work, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons
Tal Gross, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University
Sumit Mohan, MD; associate professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Columbia University Medical Center.
The authors have all completed fellowships in the Columbia Public Voices Op-Ed program.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.
Columbia medical faculty: What do we do about Dr. Oz?
http://ift.tt/1EjrOVb
via Ravenvoron
No comments:
Post a Comment