Medical Malpractice in Pharmaceutical Prescriptions
In today's health care system, an unhealthy degree of influence on medical care is influenced by questionable relationships between pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals.
First Do No Harm Do as You’re Sold
During the past 20 years or so, there has been an alarming shift in the structure and integrity of the American health care system as pharmaceutical companies have carefully cultivated an ethically questionable relationship with the doctors and other medical professionals who are responsible for ensuring that patients receive the best care possible. The evidence of this hazardous wooing is all around, and you may not have noticed its gradual accumulation in your provider’s office, but sure enough, there it is. Displayed with reckless abandon are the seemingly innocuous tools of influence which obscure the darker underlying truth.
Viagra mugs, Claritin pens, Advair posters, and a host of sample drugs blend into the landscape, but this was not always the case. Pharmaceutical sales reps have become power players in this dynamic new market, and it is their job to do whatever it takes to persuade a doctor to prescribe more of their drugs than they presently are. As shameful as it is, some arrangements have even included illegal kickbacks to physicians who met certain off-the-books incentive goals. When money is thrown around like that, it’s difficult for patient’s rights and health to remain at the fore of a greed driven mind.
And oh, what money there is. In the current system, someone without insurance may (if they have the money) have to fork over more than $500 for enough medication to last only one month. In many places, that’s roughly equivalent to paying rent on a second home or apartment. For the insured, out-of-pocket expenses can still be too high, if multiple prescriptions are involved. This tremendous income generates plenty of revenue to be used for legitimate, or illegitimate advertising and marketing methods.
Supplying Demand
Over the same period that drug prices have radically increased, so, too, has the amount of money spent on marketing a variety of medications directly to the public instead of allowing doctors to act as knowledgeable recommenders. A particularly sharp uptick occurred from 1996-2000, when the amount of money devoted to advertising drugs tripled, and then some. And the growth in spending did not stop there, because the pharmaceutical companies discovered that by pushing their drugs to the fore of consumer consciousness, they could induce consumers to convince themselves that they needed medications, even if they were unnecessary or irrelevant to the conditions with which they were afflicted.
Consequently, product-oriented patients pressured physicians into prescribing the drugs that they had seen on television. Some doctors were willing to write the questionable prescriptions because they were going to receive some benefit from the drug company, and others simply felt like they had no choice but to succumb to the forceful demands of their patients. Regardless of the motivation, the result is a situation that can have devastating consequences for unwary patients who run the risk of being stuck with expensive and inappropriate medications.
There are many issues at play behind the scenes when a patient is dealing with a pharmaceutical product, and you are not expected to know and understand all the implications that are relevant. A negligent or reckless prescription issued by a self-interested physician may cause you great harm, and if you are the victim of this sort of malfeasance you have a legal right to file a suit for medical malpractice.
To demonstrate the nature of this corruption laid bare, consider this: In 2000 (the year that advertising expenditures had tripled since 1996) the drug most lavishly advertised on television was Merck’s new arthritis medicine. This product received $161 million worth of TV time, compared to Prilosec, the second product, which came in at $108 million. What drug could have warranted that much money on only its television advertising? Vioxx. In 2004 Vioxx was removed from the market because it had been linked to nearly 30,000 deaths and a dramatically increased risk of heart attack and stroke in those who took it.
For Answers
It is a true shame that the love of money has so deeply affected the integrity of the American health care system. If you have been the victim of medical malpractice related to inappropriate prescriptions, you may wish to speak with Shawn M. Stepleton, who can help you to understand your legal rights.
During the past 20 years or so, there has been an alarming shift in the structure and integrity of the American health care system as pharmaceutical companies have carefully cultivated an ethically questionable relationship with the doctors and other medical professionals who are responsible for ensuring that patients receive the best care possible. The evidence of this hazardous wooing is all around, and you may not have noticed its gradual accumulation in your provider’s office, but sure enough, there it is. Displayed with reckless abandon are the seemingly innocuous tools of influence which obscure the darker underlying truth.
Viagra mugs, Claritin pens, Advair posters, and a host of sample drugs blend into the landscape, but this was not always the case. Pharmaceutical sales reps have become power players in this dynamic new market, and it is their job to do whatever it takes to persuade a doctor to prescribe more of their drugs than they presently are. As shameful as it is, some arrangements have even included illegal kickbacks to physicians who met certain off-the-books incentive goals. When money is thrown around like that, it’s difficult for patient’s rights and health to remain at the fore of a greed driven mind.
And oh, what money there is. In the current system, someone without insurance may (if they have the money) have to fork over more than $500 for enough medication to last only one month. In many places, that’s roughly equivalent to paying rent on a second home or apartment. For the insured, out-of-pocket expenses can still be too high, if multiple prescriptions are involved. This tremendous income generates plenty of revenue to be used for legitimate, or illegitimate advertising and marketing methods.
Supplying Demand
Over the same period that drug prices have radically increased, so, too, has the amount of money spent on marketing a variety of medications directly to the public instead of allowing doctors to act as knowledgeable recommenders. A particularly sharp uptick occurred from 1996-2000, when the amount of money devoted to advertising drugs tripled, and then some. And the growth in spending did not stop there, because the pharmaceutical companies discovered that by pushing their drugs to the fore of consumer consciousness, they could induce consumers to convince themselves that they needed medications, even if they were unnecessary or irrelevant to the conditions with which they were afflicted.
Consequently, product-oriented patients pressured physicians into prescribing the drugs that they had seen on television. Some doctors were willing to write the questionable prescriptions because they were going to receive some benefit from the drug company, and others simply felt like they had no choice but to succumb to the forceful demands of their patients. Regardless of the motivation, the result is a situation that can have devastating consequences for unwary patients who run the risk of being stuck with expensive and inappropriate medications.
There are many issues at play behind the scenes when a patient is dealing with a pharmaceutical product, and you are not expected to know and understand all the implications that are relevant. A negligent or reckless prescription issued by a self-interested physician may cause you great harm, and if you are the victim of this sort of malfeasance you have a legal right to file a suit for medical malpractice.
To demonstrate the nature of this corruption laid bare, consider this: In 2000 (the year that advertising expenditures had tripled since 1996) the drug most lavishly advertised on television was Merck’s new arthritis medicine. This product received $161 million worth of TV time, compared to Prilosec, the second product, which came in at $108 million. What drug could have warranted that much money on only its television advertising? Vioxx. In 2004 Vioxx was removed from the market because it had been linked to nearly 30,000 deaths and a dramatically increased risk of heart attack and stroke in those who took it.
For Answers
It is a true shame that the love of money has so deeply affected the integrity of the American health care system. If you have been the victim of medical malpractice related to inappropriate prescriptions, you may wish to speak with Shawn M. Stepleton, who can help you to understand your legal rights.

Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.

Use the form below to email this article to your friends.

- Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
- Medical Malpractice
- Florida Injury Lawyers hit Medical Malpractice: When Doctors Go to Jail
- Medical Malpractice & Nursing Home Abuse
- Finding Medical Malpractice Lawyers
- Seeking Justice on Medical Malpractice
- How to File a Successful Medical Malpractice Claim
- The 4-Step Guide to Winning a Medical Malpractice Claim
- Factors in Medical Malpractice Claim
- Do You Have a Medical Malpractice Case? – Here’s an Important Tip
- Medical Malpractice – Are You a Victim?
- Medical Malpractice and Legal Matters
- Medical Malpractice: Three Myths That Cost Your Hospital Millions
- Cerebral palsy hopes and treatments
- How can You Know You will be Safe from an Incompetent Doctor when you Visit the Hospital
- To Prevail In a Malpractice Suit, You Need An Edge
- Basic Elements in Medical Negligence Claims
- Patients get impatient
- Study Shows that Doctors Hurt Patients by Making Simple Mistakes
- Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations
- Medical Malpractice Cases
- Medical Malpractice Statistics



