If the issues have been blown out of all proportion by the lay media, I would imagine it should be pretty clear at the end of the evening that this was the case and that this might dispel undue media frenzy. I agree fully that, if I am wrong on the issues, dispelling misconceptions would be for the best.
extract from - http://www.healyprozac.com/ re - Goodwin Healy Debate.doc
Department of Psychological Medicine
Hergest Unit
Ysbyty Gwynedd
BANGOR
Gwynedd LL57 2PW
Tel : (01248) 384452
Fax : (01248) 371397
12th October 2004
Professor Guy Goodwin
WA Handley Professor of Psychiatry
University Department of Psychiatry
Warneford Hospital
Headington
Oxford
OX3 7JX
Dear Guy
In the wake of the recent Panorama programme the BMJ ran an editorial by John
Geddes, as it has previously run commentaries by Phil and others after previous
programmes. The editorial, and a further piece in that edition of the BMJ by
Patrick Waller, suggests that the harm the media may be doing in this area may
outweigh any good.
The problem, John’s editorial suggests, if it exists at all, is small. However, even
a very small problem multiplied up by 50-100 million people can become the
biggest drug problem of all time. It is a matter of some importance therefore to
establish whether there is a problem or not, or perhaps a problem on balance or
not.
Patrick Waller’s piece complained that distinguished voices gave rise to concerns
but no data was presented. Programmes like Panorama however are not well
suited to the presentation of data. They do not pretend to offer an academic
forum.
To this end I am writing to you to propose a public airing of the issues. A debate
is one format but the volume of available data that needs to be presented may
make this unrealistic. Also, my experience of other debates in this area is that
this format can become quite ad hominem, owing to canvassing by some of the
companies who have attempted to cloud the issues by planting questions aimed
at impugning my motives and otherwise throwing sand in the eyes of any
audience.
A better format might involve a somewhat lengthier exposition of the clinical trial
and epidemiological evidence than a debate would allow in a manner that might
manuscript and slides.
Whatever format, it would be a good idea if the audience included
representatives of the major academic media such as the BMJ, the Lancet and
the British Journal of Psychiatry. It would also be useful to have representatives
of Panorama, the Guardian and other media of your choosing, as well
representatives from the regulatory apparatus and even formal company
representation. If the issues have been blown out of all proportion by the lay
media, I would imagine it should be pretty clear at the end of the evening that this
was the case and that this might dispel undue media frenzy. I agree fully that, if I
am wrong on the issues, dispelling misconceptions would be for the best. For
this reason I would invite you to set up a presentation/encounter. Editorials and
comments even in the BMJ are no substitute for a proper and open debate.
I will also be writing to Robin Murray on this issue, as even before this latest fuss
I had proposed such an idea to Simon Wessely.
Yours sincerely
Dr David Healy
Director of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine
cc.
Professor John Geddes, Senior Clinical Research Fellow, Dept of Psychiatry,
University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7JX
Dr Kamran Abbasi, Acting Editor, British Medical Journal, BMJ Publishing Group,
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR
Dr Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet, The Lancet Publishing Group, 32
Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY
Professor David Weatherall, The Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine,
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DS
Dr M Shooter, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 17 Belgrave
Square, London SW1X 8PG
Professor P Tyrer, Editor, British Journal of Psychiatry, Royal College of
Psychiatrists
Sarah Boseley, Health Correspondent, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road,
London EC1R 3ER
extract from - http://www.healyprozac.com/ re - Goodwin Healy Debate.doc
Department of Psychological Medicine
Hergest Unit
Ysbyty Gwynedd
BANGOR
Gwynedd LL57 2PW
Tel : (01248) 384452
Fax : (01248) 371397
12th October 2004
Professor Guy Goodwin
WA Handley Professor of Psychiatry
University Department of Psychiatry
Warneford Hospital
Headington
Oxford
OX3 7JX
Dear Guy
In the wake of the recent Panorama programme the BMJ ran an editorial by John
Geddes, as it has previously run commentaries by Phil and others after previous
programmes. The editorial, and a further piece in that edition of the BMJ by
Patrick Waller, suggests that the harm the media may be doing in this area may
outweigh any good.
The problem, John’s editorial suggests, if it exists at all, is small. However, even
a very small problem multiplied up by 50-100 million people can become the
biggest drug problem of all time. It is a matter of some importance therefore to
establish whether there is a problem or not, or perhaps a problem on balance or
not.
Patrick Waller’s piece complained that distinguished voices gave rise to concerns
but no data was presented. Programmes like Panorama however are not well
suited to the presentation of data. They do not pretend to offer an academic
forum.
To this end I am writing to you to propose a public airing of the issues. A debate
is one format but the volume of available data that needs to be presented may
make this unrealistic. Also, my experience of other debates in this area is that
this format can become quite ad hominem, owing to canvassing by some of the
companies who have attempted to cloud the issues by planting questions aimed
at impugning my motives and otherwise throwing sand in the eyes of any
audience.
A better format might involve a somewhat lengthier exposition of the clinical trial
and epidemiological evidence than a debate would allow in a manner that might
manuscript and slides.
Whatever format, it would be a good idea if the audience included
representatives of the major academic media such as the BMJ, the Lancet and
the British Journal of Psychiatry. It would also be useful to have representatives
of Panorama, the Guardian and other media of your choosing, as well
representatives from the regulatory apparatus and even formal company
representation. If the issues have been blown out of all proportion by the lay
media, I would imagine it should be pretty clear at the end of the evening that this
was the case and that this might dispel undue media frenzy. I agree fully that, if I
am wrong on the issues, dispelling misconceptions would be for the best. For
this reason I would invite you to set up a presentation/encounter. Editorials and
comments even in the BMJ are no substitute for a proper and open debate.
I will also be writing to Robin Murray on this issue, as even before this latest fuss
I had proposed such an idea to Simon Wessely.
Yours sincerely
Dr David Healy
Director of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine
cc.
Professor John Geddes, Senior Clinical Research Fellow, Dept of Psychiatry,
University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7JX
Dr Kamran Abbasi, Acting Editor, British Medical Journal, BMJ Publishing Group,
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR
Dr Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet, The Lancet Publishing Group, 32
Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY
Professor David Weatherall, The Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine,
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DS
Dr M Shooter, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 17 Belgrave
Square, London SW1X 8PG
Professor P Tyrer, Editor, British Journal of Psychiatry, Royal College of
Psychiatrists
Sarah Boseley, Health Correspondent, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road,
London EC1R 3ER
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.