Will adding humanities to the med school curriculum help make for a better doctor? That’s what this article from the New York Times explores. It talks about whether art appreciation can help sharpen a physician-to-be’s ability to notice details and generally be more observant of patients. I don’t know if it helps or not with their clinical skills, but the more well-rounded a doc—or anyone, for that matter—is, the better they’re able to do their jobs. Humans are pretty complex animals, and when we let a part of ourselves wither, I tend to believe the whole organism suffers.

And there are other ways art and medicine intersect. I remember speaking with a CME professional who included artwork from people afflicted with a certain disease into her conference, and it made the docs see these patients in a different, more human light. And there’s the Foundation for Hospital Art, which helps corporate groups (including pharma groups) make art projects as a teambuilding activity, then donates the results to hospitals to perk up their walls. And think of all the work that’s been done in institutional design to determine which colors, shapes, and patterns help patients feel comfortable and soothed.

It can’t possibly hurt to give future docs a look into the artist’s world and pick up from it what they will. If nothing else, it will stretch their minds out of their accustomed patterns, and that can only make for a better doc.

Thanks to Anne Taylor-Vaisey for the pointer.

From the Boston Globe: New waiver law fails to quiet criticism over experts’ financial ties to drug companies.

Managing conflicts of interest that accompany top scientists is a juggling act the FDA has been doing for years. The new law was supposed to make it better without grinding FDA approvals to a halt. Since the law was passed, the FDA has issued nearly 100 waivers — and the controversy hasn’t faded.



Critics say the new transparency has changed little and scientists who have conflicts of interest can still guide FDA decision making. The FDA counters that public health would suffer if the agency bypassed the nation’s best scientists because of funding sources.

This sounds a lot like the conflict-of-interest debate the CME community continually is contending with, doesn’t it?

There’s an interesting post on the Pharma Marketing Blog about some possibly problematic ties between the RLS Foundation and its corporate pharma sponsors that have the potential to bias the research the foundation has one on the prevalence of RLS and hence, the need for its corporate sponsors’ RLS drugs. I’ll be watching this one to see where author John Mack goes with it (and where the Google ads on his blog go with it—interestingly, there were two ads for “natural remedies” for RLS when I read it). And here’s another post on related topics.

A manager at the Central Manchester Primary Care Trust sent a letter to pharma companies that asked them to pay into a “training fund” to get access to key physicians, according to

ManchesterOnline.co.uk.

The letter, signed by Karen O’Brien, associate director of chronic disease and medicine management at Central Manchester Primary Care Trust, was sent out to all drug companies on December 22 last year. It starts by staying sales reps are barred from entering any GP practice in Central Manchester.



Sponsored




Ms O’Brien wrote: “Drug representatives will not be allowed to provide sponsored lunches, conferences, and samples or enter PCT properties without permission.”




But the letter goes on to offer structured meetings in return for cash gifts to the training fund. “From April 1, 2006 we will request that the Drug Industry Companies contribute to the fund.




“As a contributor you will have to opportunity to attend organised training/education events,” Ms O’Brien added.




Neither the pharmaceutical companies nor the PCT would say exactly how much they were expected to pay, but the money was designed to pay for courses.

Officials from the Central Manchester Primary Care Trust say it’s all a misunderstanding, and “the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries, which represents major drug companies, said: ‘We became aware of the letter after it went out and expressed concern to the primary care trust that it potentially contravenes our code of practice.’”