Today I would like to speak or to speak better to let a colleague, dr. Corrado Colombo, who has published an interesting article on his blog , on an issue in my opinion not properly eviscerated, or by bodies and fora consistent (although to be fair from February 24 last there is a table still open at the Ministry of Health to listen to the various stakeholders on the issue), nor the media usually give great economic news to some, but in this case, strangely still prefer a deafening silence, who knows maybe is also generally better than the hype or superficial way in which they are used to treat many news stories.
In any case, the question concern to both physicians and veterinarians that pet owners, because according to new regulations (DL n.193 of talk about the April 6, 2006 implementing Directive 2004 / 28/CE and was further adjusted and integrated with the changes introduced by DL n.143 of 24 July 2007 ), especially if interpreted and applied blindly restrictive and myopic sense, looming insurmountable obstacles in ' implementation in our knowledge of therapeutic interventions and practical management of many diseases.
But I give the word to Conrad that the draft of his article focuses and clarifies these issues so egregious, suggesting a shared interpretation:
"Basically if you are a veterinarian and I have to treat an animal, if I want to treat an animal and there is no veterinary medicine, the human use. Especially when it comes to animals that are not eaten. Not I see no harm. Only a few Italian laws that prohibit this use, and were sanctioned by thousands euro to veterinary pet for that reason. Pets. Dogs and cats.
Note well, very often the problem is availability: the pharmacist does not have the veterinary medicine, while the human is much more available, even capillaries. Other times the human drug works better than the vet, or an alternative to it. Other times, the same composition, it costs less.
AISA, the powerful combination of category (you define the Italian Association of Animal Health, with euphemistic terms) producers veterinary medicines, combined with Federchimica and Confindustria, disagrees, and so far understood. AISA uses arguments technically very weak, as the tolerability of specific drugs, and rejects the argument of the higher costs. In short, if a penicillin veterinary costs 10 and the same drug for human use is 5 to AISA's okay. Established the technical reasons are very questionable. "
E 'on the basis of these premises which are situated two petitions brought by certain independent professional and cultural associations, such ASSOVET and UNISVET , one in particular ( one promoted by ASSOVET ) I wanted to personally support it, signing it and publicizing it here (see banner on the right hand column of this blog).
"Captain at this point things get weird:
- the FNOVI , with a harsh statement, disassociates itself from the petition. You do not even understand why such a deviation. Not of course among others who would be sent "requests for information and clarification"
- even ANMVI similar issues like press
- AISA associated with the pharmaceutical industry, which by its own admission ".. it was always a constant and dependable partner for all veterinary cultural associations, support projects for professional growth", in short, has always sponsored cultural societies, pulling out of money, well, these companies to withdraw sponsorship Assovet (and Unisvet, independent cultural society), with economic motives.
Concomitant least suspect, but also legitimate .- This is a call for meeting the usual desk, to the ministry, which will be broad and unusual visibility.
Above all, AISA will send a letter which gives us Assovet slashes against the petition, but also points out that their association has always supported the growth plans of all the cultural associations. Translation: we have always given money to the associations. In addition to withdrawing its sponsorship Assovet.
I do not mind the excellent response technique, Massimo Raviola, President Assovet, gives very well and correctly. Or the equally correct Dorcaratto Andrea, President Unisvet.
What worries me is this disproportionate reaction synergistic AISA, Ministry, ANMVI around a lobbying position. So I would like to make a different analysis.
ANMVI, that I remember is a private, legitimately and in a transparent way, says it dissociates. Basically says "we are fighting to ensure that the vet sells veterinary drugs in his practice, so it would give in the foot. The human drug, even in this case, the pharmacists would sell, not us." For goodness sake, even consumer groups are against, but their problem. Personally I think such a project should be pursued more clear, but personal opinion.
AISA is also transparent in its own way, and she also legitimately.
is not exactly refined, or culturally advanced, but this is not a crime.
But worried about the reaction FNOVI. Why? What sense is there such a separation? Basically Assovet asks a very ethical and completely transparent. I quite differentiated from AISA, that the letter speaks of the cultural society, but we know that the advertising of the drug has its own weight, even in the journal FNOVI.
and ministry that they say? Non dimentichiamo che stiamo parlando di quel Ministero dove scoppiò, proprio per la decisione su quali farmaci si potevano usare, in umana, e sul loro prezzo, il più grande, vergognoso scandalo della gestione del farmaco, quello di Duilio Poggiolini, funzionario ministeriale che imbottiva i divani di soldi.
Parliamo di industrie del farmaco, il cui Direttore Generale, Enrica Giorgetti, è la moglie del ministro del welfare. Parliamo dell'ambiente dove nascono scandali a gogo, quello della Salute. Dobbiamo avere dubbi solo sul comparto umano? Non sembra anche a voi che occorra trasparenza?
In particolare, vorremmo conoscere i rapporti economici di AISA con TUTTE le istituzioni veterinarie. Sapere se e chi e quanto e perchè viene pagato.
E la FNOVI, non si sente in imbarazzo a difendere l'ECM, su cui ci sono interessi fortissimi di quelle società culturali che poi ricevono i soldi di AISA?
Secondo me ce ne sarebbe abbastanza da almeno avviarci un'inchiesta. Si possono ipotizzare manovre anticoncorrenziali, tentativi di cartello, tutte cose proibite dalla legge. E' dovere di tutti chiarire questi dubbi e la loro posizione. Sarebbe dovere dello Stato controllare che nessuno cerchi di fare il furbo, sia pure sulle spalle dei proprietari di animali, che alla fine pagano loro. E qualche volta anche sulla pelle degli animali, in questo caso.
Quante leggi sul farmaco veterinario sono condizionate dalla lobby farmaceutica e quanto da effettive necessità? Possibile che ci sia questa grande sinergia su una parte tutto sommato minima della questione farmaco veterinario e che nessuno si occupi invece del farmaco in nero, la vera questione preoccupante? Perché una reazione simile? Esiste forse un sistema di condizionamento, di cartello, che ha infiltrato le aree di contiguità?
Io propongo che la petizione venga allargata a questi concepts. We want to know what is being paid by drug companies to institutions and associations. We want transparency
Without changing a transparency effect, but not the cause. And this is the Italian ailment. The lack of transparency. And 'why we fight. "
I hope that after reading this article you also have to sign and want to sign the petition in question so that it acquires weight and bargaining power becomes an important to deal with on our own terms and not those imposed by AISA.
0 comments:
Post a Comment