This is an important topic, but by relying on a single source (a documentary film), Gehlert doesn't win any good journalism points. There are many angles to this story- by not presenting other prespectives, Gehlert does a disservice to the issue. Bad Journalism.
This is a good overview of how "big pharmacy's" marketing and drug representatives get in to see the doctor when you can't, and how their marketing sways what medicines you may get. From trinkets to lunches to free samples, the pharmacuetical companies have found a way to "advise" doctors that, in reality, leads to drug company's getting in the middle of your doctor's choice in your medications. Although this article has already been noted as having only one source, it is actually about a new documentary. As such, this can stand as a good story providing information about the documentary and the background of this pervasive problem.
This story is a fabulous and articulate synopsis of the state of the pharmaceutical marketing strategies of the big drug companies. It details the efforts to which a drug company will go to influence doctors to prescribe their drugs, even when those drugs may be ineffective or even dangerous. The key conclusion is this: Unless more people become educated about these abuses, the government won't become interested in reform because they, too, are beholden to drug companies.
This article should be pulled out if the ethos of NewsTrust is to be maintained. Poorly researched, opinionated, unbalanced and polemical, it adds nothing to an important issue: that of the impact of Pharma advertising, to doctors, and more dangerously, directly to consumers. The responses, save a couple, are from "doctor bashers" who have an axe to grind. There is no denying that Big Pharma has stepped over too many boundaries in its efforts at maintaining corporate bottom lines. It needs to be checked, but not by articles of this kind.