Multiple loopholes have surfaced in the process of finalisation of rules which ban pharmaceutical companies from bribing doctors.
The draft rules prohibit pharma companies from providing any travel facility, tickets of air, rail, ship or cruise to any medical practitioner or their relatives. However, in something that can defeat the very purpose of making such rules, they state that such sponsorship may be allowed if a medical association maintains a register of details of sponsorship and expenditure for three years, and makes it available for scrutiny.
The draft order of the Essential Commodities (Control of Unethical Practices in Marketing of Drugs, 2017) is in the last stages of finalization, without allotting a window of 45 days for inviting public opinion. The draft has not been made available in the public domain. In a letter accessed by DNA, on June 22, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) released a draft order to be published in the Gazette of India. On July 11, Sudhanshu Pant, Joint Secretary to the government, sent the order to Suresh Chandra, Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs to expedite the proposal for vetting the draft.
Clause 3, Sub Clause g of the draft rules, allows for a pharmaceutical company to sponsor any seminar, Continuing Medical Education (CME) or scientific meeting, provided the association being sponsored by the company maintains a detailed register.
"Under the garb of attending conferences or CMEs, most doctors take off to exotic locations for vacations, allegedly sponsored by pharma companies. The rules formed are paradoxical and provide back door entry for festering of more rot in the medical profession," said Dr Gurinder Grewal, former president, Punjab Medical Council.
Dr Arun Mitra, member of the Association of Doctors for Ethical Healthcare (ADEH), says "This leaves scope for huge expenditure by companies in the name of holding CME programmes. This clause needs to be completely omitted. It is the duty of the doctors to update themselves."
The clause further states that a pharma company or its agent can organize screening camps or awareness campaigns in public institutions such as hospitals, health centres or other centres approved by central or state government without using it for surrogate advertisement of its products. "Such a clause can be misused and should be done away with. If a company is sponsoring a health camp, it is obvious that they will publicize their brand," added Dr Mitra. "Also, the biggest stake holder here is the patient, so why are they not being consulted? Why is the mandatory provision of putting the draft in the public domain being bypassed?"
The order states that rules have been framed to regulate the marketing activities of pharmaceutical and allied health companies for curbing unethical practices of giving gifts and sponsoring hospitality. However, the largely unregulated industry of medical devices has been left out. "Medical devices are not part of the order," said Dr Grewal. "This means a large chunk of expensive items, where the companies make huge profit, have been exempted, widening the scope for corruption."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Pharma")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}