Policy Options (CAN): "Is pharmaceutical transparency in Canada all just talk?"

From Policy Options, July 2016:

 

"Health Canada has been talking about improving the transparency of information around pharmaceutical drugs for years. The drug regulator has failed to back up that talk with genuine commitment and action.

 

Meanwhile, the lack of transparency around pharmaceutical drugs continues to undermine patient safety and public health. Unless a drug’s full safety and effectiveness profile is transparent, physicians and patients alike are at best misinformed. At worst, patients could suffer significant harm, even death, after taking a government-approved, physician-prescribed drug."

 

 

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/july-2016/is-pharmaceutical-transparency-in-canada-all-just-talk/

Yup, sounds about right.  If you look at Health Canada's warnings and precautions for clonazepam/Rivotril, it doesn't even begin to cover the dangers:  https://hpr-rps.hres.ca/details.php?drugproductid=3366&query=RIVOTRIL

 

 

That Dr. Barbara Mintzes (UBC) is often part of the good work that 's being done.

 

I wonder if anybody reads these things besides us.  Is anyone listening!!??

 

Thanks for that Lapis.

Well, my dear benzohno, at least the authors of this article are concerned about this issue. I got to this article from a CBC online article, and yes, there are concerned professionals (professors, in this case) who would like to see some action on this point.

It's great, at least, to know how seriously these academics are taking this matter, and really pushing the Government for greater transparency.  Confidential business information?!  Unbelievable!   They're certainly not mincing their words and their allegiance appears to be 100% with the patient.  How refreshing. 

 

I clicked and skimmed a couple other links within the article and see David Healy was one of the 95 clinicians to sign:

 

In response to Health Canada’s call for public commentary on its Draft Guidance, we wrote and coordinated a series of submissions, signed by 95 clinicians and researchers, representatives of civil society, and legal scholars, calling on Health Canada to remove these limitations and exclude drug safety and effectiveness from the category of confidential business information. We also argued in one of our submissions that the Draft Guidance is, in legal terms, deeply flawed and may violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Well, my dear benzohno, at least the authors of this article are concerned about this issue. I got to this article from a CBC online article, and yes, there are concerned professionals (professors, in this case) who would like to see some action on this point.

It's great, at least, to know how seriously these academics are taking this matter, and really pushing the Government for greater transparency.  Confidential business information?!  Unbelievable!   They're certainly not mincing their words and their allegiance appears to be 100% with the patient.  How refreshing. 

 

I clicked and skimmed a couple other links within the article and see David Healy was one of the 95 clinicians to sign:

 

In response to Health Canada’s call for public commentary on its Draft Guidance, we wrote and coordinated a series of submissions, signed by 95 clinicians and researchers, representatives of civil society, and legal scholars, calling on Health Canada to remove these limitations and exclude drug safety and effectiveness from the category of confidential business information. We also argued in one of our submissions that the Draft Guidance is, in legal terms, deeply flawed and may violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

Okay, true...I think my glass is half-empty today.

Okay, true...I think my glass is half-empty today.

 

What's in your glass, Bohno? 

:laugh: 

 

Apparently I've got some ,  , , , and in my glass today.

 

Too funny Abes.