Letters to the Editor - June 16, 2008

Health threat from climate change is not supported by the evidence - There is no "unholy alliance" between doctors and drug, medical firms

Health threat from climate change is not supported by the evidence

Regarding "Health risks heating up? Global warming could affect patients' symptoms" (Article, April 21): Your article contains a host of opinions and dire conclusions about global warming that are unsupported by evidence-based medicine.

There is a growing body of meteorological evidence that global warming trends are abating. AMNews reports studies showing a link between plant growth and increased CO2 with negative effects.

Many studies demonstrate a positive impact of warming or increased CO2 on agriculture. Many meteorologists now believe that the human role in altering warming/cooling cycles present as long as earth has had a climate is vastly overstated, as is the threat to the health and well-being of humankind. There are many studies that demonstrate that excessive cold is more of a threat to human health than warmth.

For a variety of political reasons, these inconvenient facts have received scant attention in the news media. It is nevertheless a disappointment to see such an unbalanced presentation in AMNews.

We have presented a more sanguine view of climate change in "Anthropogenic global warming: a skeptical point of view" (Missouri Medicine, March/April 2008). We also would direct AMNews readers interested in a science-based alternative viewpoint of human-caused global warming dogma to read the comments on this issue by Sen. James N. Inhofe (R, Okla.). They can be accessed through the Web site of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where he serves as ranking member (www.epw.senate.gov/public/).

--John C. Hagan III, MD, Kansas City, Mo.

--Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Columbia, Mo.

Editor's note: Dr. Hagan is the editor of Missouri Medicine, and Lupo is associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Missouri.

There is no "unholy alliance" between doctors and drug, medical firms

Regarding "Med schools asked to shun drug firm freebies" (Article, May 26): Your front-page article highlights how out of touch the Assn. of American Medical Colleges is with medical practice. As the costs and requirements of continuing medical education escalate, medical and pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to introduce us to new technologies and to conduct seminars on their products without the stigma of conflict of interest.

Today, by far most medical research is being conducted in private industry, not in academia. Our close association with this sector should only serve to benefit society.

It is an assault on my professionalism when they righteously presume that just because a pharmaceutical company sponsors a lecture and treats me to dinner that I will be compelled to use that product against the best interests of my patients.

If a vendor pays for me to fly across the country to observe an expert perform a new surgical procedure, how can that possibly be construed as being a disservice to the people whom I am entrusted to treat? And why shouldn't I be allowed to declare that as a credit toward my continuing medical education requirement? What could be more in keeping with the spirit of continuing education?

It's about time to expunge this ill-conceived notion that doctors and the medical and pharmaceutical companies have an unholy alliance, and the AMA should lead the way in repairing our tarnished ethical image.

--Ronald Ripps, MD, Danbury, Conn.

Vote refines AMA stance on health reform
The AMA House of Delegates rejected attempts to rescind support of a U.S. House health reform bill and any new government-sponsored health insurance plan during the 2009 Interim Meeting.
Story - AMA House - Slideshow