Medical association abuse

Dear Editor:

In reply to Bob Wurster’s letter last week:

While medicine effectively governs itself, the real muscle, that makes their views effective, is provided by state boards of medicine. The state boards blindly discipline or threaten to discipline, as the medical associations demand.

If a pharmaceutical wishes to unethically promote its drug, it corrupts the relevant medical associations. These associations then write medical practice guidelines that favor the pharmaceutical.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this situation in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar and declared that guidelines in the presence of disciplinary action are not voluntary but mandatory and effectively law. Thus, a physician can then be the subject of state investigation if he violates this guideline by ethically prescribing some other therapy even if it is FDA approved and indicated.

Mr. Wurster assumed that this situation was a need for the regulation of the medical associations. It is not. It is a demand that state regulation to be done properly. As evident, the government, by blindly following corrupt medical association dictates, improperly becomes a co-conspirator in the corruption. This corruption takes advantage of the very people that the state is required to protect.

This gets back to the theme of my letter of April 14. Legislation is difficult to do because on the one hand, it must allow the government to govern and on the other hand, it must oblige the government to limit itself. The medical legislation has allowed the medical associations to govern how they choose. Their governance is assisted blindly and potentially improperly by state executed fines and by license revocation. In fact, the state boards of medicine have been key to the medical kangaroo court — the sham peer review.

Just where is the limitation of government that James Madison found necessary for good government?

Eric K. Pritchard
Berkeley Springs