The internet has transformed the way we do everything and health is no exception. The e-health movement has been a revelation for the way medicine is carried out, especially in developing countries. It has been a huge boon for hospitals and other offices in terms of the increase in electronic health records which allows for a much easier, effective, and cheap way to send patient files to other doctors who need it. Also, e-health has allowed people that are too far away from a doctor and have no means of getting there to do things like take a picture of something on their body and send it to their doctor to be diagnosed. But maybe the most widespread use of e-health has been the proliferation and access to medical information on the web. There are now many websites that people can visit to check out their symptoms and find out what their best course of action is. While this can be extremely helpful, there are many problems that we need to be wary of.
The first issue with sites that provide information on symptoms and self diagnosis is that people can misconstrue the information and make themselves believe they have something they actually do not. Ordinary citizens are not qualified to make diagnoses, and while most of the time people use these sites for small things like colds and headaches, it is easy to see how people could be fooled into thinking they have something bad. However, in this case, I believe that the pros outweigh the cons, and there will always be hypochondriacs, even if there is no access to these websites. I believe that the real problem is when these websites are connected with pharmaceutical companies that have a vested interest in getting people to buy their drugs. One company with such ties, is WebMD, the leading health portal in the United States.
A New York Times Magazine article earlier this year discussed the possible conflict of interest in WebMD, as it is a for profit organization that is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and relies on ad revenue. Last year, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa launched an investigation into WebMD’s ties to big pharmaceuticals such as drug maker Eli Lilly. While no misconduct was reported, it has been argued that WebMD can be quick to point people to certain drugs when they may not be really necessary. For example, in the magazine piece, author Virginia Heffernan points out that a search on headaches quickly leads to migraines and possible drug treatments for migraines, when in reality a person may just have a normal headache. WebMD wants to make money and the best way for them to do that is to get pharmaceuticals to sponsor them, which is at least in the back of the minds of the site creators, even if they do not explicitly mention the drugs on each page. I believe that it is wrong for a health site to have any ties to pharmaceuticals as it is a conflict of interest, even if not explicitly. When Americans visit WebMD, they expect to get the best possible answer to their questions and symptoms, not what makes WebMD the most money. Most of the time, drugs are unnecessary to treat minor symptoms, but with ties to drug companies, WebMD may direct users to a drug before it is really necessary. Sites like WebMD may be the future of medicine, and can truly be a great resource for people, but if they continue to have ties to drug companies than they will never be the most accurate, respected source they should be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06FOB-Medium-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine
Adam-- I really enjoyed reading your article. Despite the fact that both of my parents work for pharmaceutical companies, I used to be very anti pharma because of their apparently lack of morality in the pursuit of profit. However, my article this week is actually about pharmaceutical companies as doing something good for people around the world.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate that pharmaceutical companies often make efforts for public good only when there is profit to be made, but I definitely see some good in their work.
I agree, however, that WebMD brings up questions of ethics, especially if people begin to think they have worse disorders than in actuality. It will be truly interesting to see how this whole legislation plays out.
Adam, I think you bring up a really important point about the role of pharmaceutical companies in the emerging role of 'E-Health'. As a country, we have become more reliant on pharmaceutical drugs, and we've seen an alarming increase in abuse of such drugs. The issue of drugs may be one of the most detrimental to the e-health movement. By replacing doctors with SMS text diagnosis in developing countries it will be difficult to regulate the use of drugs - both over-the-counter and prescription. With respect to these issues it will be interesting to see how those leading the program and the leaders in developing countries cope and address the potential issue of drug abuse.
ReplyDeleteI understand your critique of the “evil corporation” or the business that…omg makes a profit. But I feel the burden of the problem relies on the person actually visiting WebMD. First, they should know what they are getting into. For example I know that when I watch FoxNews its tailored to my interests. Second, if they are relying on one source to cure their health problems then that’s an issue as well. Something that people are uneducated on they should be searching for several answers/sources. I think it’s totally fine that pharmaceuticals are linked to WebMD. Although WebMD may be quick to recommend prescribing me something, I as a responsible individual need to be more educated on my current health and look to other sources to get vital information on what is best for me.
ReplyDelete