A basic question needs to be addressed in considering the report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the AMA Industry Support of Professional Education in Medicine
Here it is:
Why is commercial support of Continuing Medical Education bad?
For instance, if electric transmission equipment companies contribute money to support the costs of holding a summer short course for utility executives, or concrete supply companies support a seminar for practicing civil engineers, would anyone even raise an eyebrow?
“Medicine is different – it involves life and death decisions,” might be the response. There’s no question medicine is unique in the pressures and decisions practitioners face.
But it’s not the only profession involved in protecting people. For instance, consider the decisions which led to Northeast blackout of 2003 or the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis. Those were made by utility executives and civil engineers.
Asking medical device companies to support a summer short course for utility executives might eliminate any possibility of the appearance of bias – but it also requires that we ignore the make-up of human beings and their organizations. Humans support and engage with what they’re interested in – what they’re passionate about. Can we really ask disinterested third parties (whether taxpayers or other sources of funding) to support all continuing education because someone thinks they should?
Or going beyond that – can we limit people’s expression of their interests and passions? Doesn’t the CEJA report in effect say: You can’t teach or support continuing education because you’re interested in the subject.
What do you think the right choice is disinterested or interested parties supporting education, you may want to ask the citizens of Minneapolis, they may have a new perspective.