Last week I watched with much interest the 52nd Maudsley debate. The motion debated was: “This house believes that the use of long term psychiatric medications is causing more harm than good”.
The Maudsley debate was covered in a head-to-head BMJ article.
Given that I have petitioned the Scottish Government for a Sunshine Act I was interested in what this Maudsley Debate might say about our approach to transparency of financial conflicts of interest:
This particular aspect of the 52nd Maudsley Debate reminded me of a series of letters published in the BMJ a decade ago. It is interesting to consider what has and what hasn’t changed in the intervening ten years. The letters were in response to the following 2003 editorial:
In a letter of response Dr K S Madhaven argued that “the market has…
View original post 335 more words