DOCSLIB.ORG

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No.1) Bill 2017 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No.1) Bill 2017 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017 Bonnie Allan, 19 January 2018 Secretary, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Dear Ms Allan, Re: ‘Your Health Your Choice’ submission: Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No.1) Bill 2017 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017 Professor Ken Harvey has shared with us the letter you wrote to him following your examination of the submission from “Your Health ,Your Choice” Inquiry into the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No.1) Bill 2017 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017. There we note your explanation that:- "The resolutions of the Senate provide that, where evidence is given to a committee which may be considered as reflecting adversely on an organisation (or a person), the committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity for that organisation to have access to that evidence and, if they wish, to respond to that evidence”. The evidence supplied would certainly be considered to reflecting adversely on ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’ (FSM) hence this response to you. Far from being the extremist group portrayed in the submission under consideration, FSM simply emphasises that when it comes to something as important as Health and Health care, strategies should be underpinned by credible scientific evidence of clinical effectiveness and, where necessary, the scientifically sound pursuit of that evidence. Hardly a radical proposition and one supported by more than 1200 leading Australian scientists (including two Nobel Laureates and our country's Chief Scientist) clinicians and consumer organisations championing better health care. Much of our advocacy tackles misleading and fraudulent claims made for ‘alternative’ health care practices that are not pertinent to your enquiry. Our peak scientific body, the National Health and Medical Research Council has thoroughly studied the evidence base for the 17 most common alternative modalities (Iridology, Reflexology, Homeopathy etc) and found no evidence for any being clinically effective. Such ‘pseudoscientific’ modalities are strongly advocated by those associated with ‘Your Health, Your Choice’. What is relevant to your committee are concerns re the misleading, often fraudulent, promotion of the health benefits of medicines and medical devices. ‘Complementary’ medicines are very popular with Australians and the industry supplying same is hugely profitable. We would emphasise that, unfortunately, we have one of the lowest levels of health literacy in the OECD that leaves Australians vulnerable to the false or exaggerated claims made by the CAM industry. While some of the complementary medicines promoted can be dangerous (particularly problematic with Chinese medicines responsible for 17% of all adverse reactions in China) most are not inherently dangerous but as there is no evidence to support the use of many such products and for many strong evidence to demonstrate actual ineffectiveness, the risk/benefit ratio emphasises risk. It is not adequately appreciated by the TGA that consumer protection should address the waste of money many cannot afford, the raising of false expectations and the delay in pursuing an accurate diagnosis and treatment. Organisations such as ‘Your Health, Your Choice’ should note that even with the current TGA regimens pre-vetting of advertisements for complementary medicines finds 70% that need adjusting for accuracy, the Complaints Resolution Panel upholds almost all of the complaints it addresses and that random auditing by TGA of claims made for TGA listed preparations finds 80-90% to be misleading. They should also be aware of the cynicism associated with successfully prosecuted cases of where manufacturers are told to refrain from making claims for a product, they simply change the name of the product and proceed with the deceptive behaviour. It is true that FSM works closely with Professor Ken Harvey who is a valued member of our executive committee; there is a natural synergy with his work at Monash University on better protecting consumers from health fraud. The partnership has been involved in helping to expose medical scams such as the impotency treatment offered by the so called Advanced Medical Institute, those involving fraudulent weight loss treatments and the promotion of expensive ineffective hormone treatments, all of which would have been prevented from doing much harm if the regulatory frame work saw TGA doing what is necessary to protect consumers from such fraud. It is claimed that FSM does not support any research into the effectiveness or otherwise of complementary medicines. This is simply not true, as is clear from the appropriate section of our website (appended). It is true that we would not support further research into certain modalities such as Homeopathy which science has studied with world-wide agreement from learned bodies that such preparations are useless and the premise for their preparation totally unfounded. We conclude by re-emphasising to your enquiry how important are the continuation of pre-vetting for advertisements, the maintenance of an independent complaints resolution panel (we have no confidence that internal TGA evaluations resourced or would be as independent as required), that ‘traditional use’ as an explanation for effectiveness should be accompanied by a clear statement that there is no scientific evidence to support claims made and indeed for a number of products e.g. Homeopathic products, "scientific evaluation has found no evidence for effectiveness”. We thank you for considering this information and are at your disposal for any further request for your deliberations. Yours Sincerely Professor John Dwyer AO. PhD, FRACP, FRCPI, Doc Uni (Hon) ACU. Emeritus Professor of Medicine and President of FSM ADDENDUM Our Association, Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) was formed at the end of 2011 to emphasise the importance of having health care in Australia based upon evidence, scientifically sound research and established scientific knowledge. The founders of FSM were and are concerned about the increasing number of health courses and interventions on offer to Australians that fall far short of this standard, as well as the inadequacy of the measures that are supposed to protect students and consumers from such practices. This is no alarmist statement. Many supposed health treatments have no scientific evidence of their effectiveness, some have been shown to cause harm, while many could not possibly work as they are incompatible with well-established principles of physics, chemistry, physiology and pharmacology. Many are pseudoscientific; assuming the trappings of scientifically sound practices in order to gain the credibility of these without subjecting themselves to the well understood tests of scientific examination that have proved so effective in giving us medical procedures and medicines that really work. We were particularly concerned that some of our universities were allowing pseudoscientific approaches to health education to be presented in health science courses without critical analysis of the principles behind them or of the claims of efficacy made for these procedures and treatments, including such practices as Acupuncture, Homeopathy, Energy Medicine, Kinesiology, Chiropractic “subluxation” theory, Cranial Sacral therapy and more. All of these approaches lack scientific credibility, but apparent endorsement of them by our universities can confer undeserved credibility on useless and sometimes dangerous approaches to healthcare. While suspect university courses provided the impetus for the creation of FSM, all aspects of the penetration of pseudoscience into our healthcare system concerns us. Many, such as Iridology, Reflexology, Rolfing, Homeopathy, much of traditional Chinese and Indian medicines, etc, are an affront to our knowledge of physiology and pathology and, relying as so many of them do on mysterious, undefinable, undetectable “energy”, could never be validated by scientific investigations as, virtually by definition, they have made themselves impossible to test. We would emphasise, however, that FSM strongly supports the need to conduct independent and disinterested scientific evaluations of those “Alternative and/or Complementary” therapies where the anecdotal evidence for benefit is strong and the underlying explanations are not incompatible with modern biological and physical sciences. Much that is of current therapeutic benefit was developed by such an approach. As FSM we are also aware of and concerned by the discovery of cases where poor scientific methodology and the fraudulent manipulation of data have occurred within the medical/scientific establishment. Some individual researchers and some of the major pharmaceutical companies have been involved in these unacceptable practices. While FSM deplores such activities, it recognizes that there are already many and increasing checks and balances within Medicine that aim to minimise such incidents. The same cannot be said for Alternative and/or Complementary medicine, which is why FSM is concentrating its efforts in this area. Valid scientific and medical research must adhere to well-established and widely recognized “best practice” protocols. FSM wants the evaluation of all potential health treatments to be subjected to similar standards for validation. When we informed the scientific and clinical communities of the establishment of FSM and sought support, we were overwhelmed with encouragement from home and abroad. As of 2017 we have over 1200 leading scientists,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission
    PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION REPORT 5/55 – NOVEMBER 2014 THE PROMOTION OF FALSE AND MISLEADING HEALTH-RELATED INFORMATION AND PRACTICES New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: New South Wales. Parliament. Joint Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission. The promotion of false and misleading health-related information and practices / Parliament of New South Wales, Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission. [Sydney, N.S.W.] : the Committee, 2014. – [71] pages ; 30 cm. (Report ; no. 5/55) Chair: Donald Page, MP. “November 2014”. ISBN 9781921012044 1. Health promotion—New South Wales. 2. Public health—New South Wales. I. Title. II. Page, Donald. III. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Joint Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission. Report ; no. 5/55. 613 (DDC22) The motto of the coat of arms for the state of New South Wales is “Orta recens quam pura nites”. It is written in Latin and means “newly risen, how brightly you shine”. FALSE AND MISLEADING HEALTH-RELATED INFORMATION AND PRACTICES Contents Membership _____________________________________________________________ ii Terms of Reference _______________________________________________________ iii Chair’s Foreword __________________________________________________________iv List of Recommendations ___________________________________________________vi Glossary ________________________________________________________________ viii CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION________________________________________1
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmed Support for J'accuse 1. Mr Malcolm Fraser AC CH GCL 2
    Confirmed support for J’Accuse 1. Mr Malcolm Fraser AC CH GCL 2. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young 3. Mr Julian Burnside AO QC 4. Mr George Newhouse Special Counsel 5. Ms Claire O’Connor Barrister 6. Mr John Menadue AO 7. GetUp! Australia 8. Marist Fathers Justice Prace and Integrity of Creation 9. Sisters of Mercy Parramatta 10. Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes (NSW) Social Justice 11. Marist Sisters Social Justice Committee 12. Margaret Ursula Eldridge AM 13. Bridge for Asylum Seekers 14. Balmain Uniting Church 15. Dr Rosie Scott Author 16. Mr Thomas Keneally AO Author 17. Anglican Social Responsibilities Commission 18. International Social Service Australia 19. Combined Refugee Action Group Geelong 20. Queenscliff Rural Australians for Refugees 21. Victorian Immigrant and Refugee Women’s Coalition 22. Refugee Rights Action Network WA 23. Rural Australians for Refugees Daylesford and District 24. Sisters of St.Joseph Sydney NSW 25. Lindfield Killara Parish Social Justice Committee 26. Southern Highlands (NSW) Greens 27. Dawn O’Neil AM 28. Frederika E Steen AM 29. Mr Arnold Zable Author 30. Gunawirra 31. Dorothy Hoddinott AO 32. Ms Jessie Taylor Barrister 33. Labor for Refugees 34. Ms Linda Jaivan Author 35. ‘concerned Australians’ 36. St John’s Social Justice Group Mitcham VIC 37. Tasmanian Asylum Seeker Support 38. Melbourne Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office 39. Frenchs Forest Parish Social Justice Group NSW 40. Combined Churches Social Justice Group Whitehorse VIC 41. Australian Jewish Democratic Society 42. Kon Karapanagiotidis OAM Asylum Seeker Resource Centre 43. Associate Professor Michael Griffith Australian Catholic University 44. Professor Allison Weir Australian Catholic University 45.
    [Show full text]
  • Number of Operations at University College London (UCL) And, in One Case, Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH)
    www.healthwatch-uk.org Established 1991 @HealthWatchUK HealthWatch Newsletter for Science and Integrity in Healthcare Issue 108, Autumn 2018 Lawyers attempt to silence Liverpool scientists There has been outrage at news that the University of Liverpool has been threatened with libel action after two of their scientists reported concerns about potential research misconduct at another university. The issue concerns research into transplanted tracheas seeded with the patient’s own stem cells, a technique which has been used experimentally in a number of operations at University College London (UCL) and, in one case, Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH). The scientists who spoke out are Patricia Murray, grants totalling almost £8m from the European professor of cellular and molecular physiology at the Commission and Innovate UK, says the BMJ report. University of Liverpool, and her colleague Raphael Lévy, Murray and Lévy also referred to their concerns in their senior lecturer in nanotechnology and imaging. Murray submission to the 2017 Science and Technology and Lévy had submitted a complaint to UCL alleging that Committee enquiry into research integrity. According to a request for approval of studies of the technique had the BMJ, UCL responded to this by saying that the included insufficient safety and efficacy data, and further evidence offered was “highly selective”. alleging that ethics committee approval had been based on HealthWatch is not in a position to comment on whether false information. UCL’s response was justified or not. But we object to any According to a report in the British Medical Journal, body using litigation to silence scientific debate, on the after Murray and Lévy pressed UCL for a response, a letter grounds that it is a threat to science and to patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial Review Panel for the General Practice and Primary Health Care Conference Papers
    CSIRO PUBLISHING Review Panel www.publish.csiro.au/journals/py Australian Journal of Primary Health, 2010, 16, 1 Editorial review panel for the general practice and primary health care conference papers Th e Editors acknowledge the essential contribution to the fi eld of primary health care research made by the following people. We greatly appreciate their time and eff ort in reviewing the papers in this issue, when they were already very busy. Associate Professor Jon Adams, University of Queensland Professor Craig Anderson, University of Sydney Ms Barbara Beacham, Flinders University, SA Dr Vanessa Beesley, Queensland Institute of Medical Research Dr Bella Brushin, Th e University of Melbourne Ms Teresa Burgess, University of Adelaide Adjunct Associate Professor Robin Burns, La Trobe University Dr Janice Chesters, Monash University Dr Elizabeth Comino, University of New South Wales Ms Lisa Crossland, James Cook University Dr Patricia Davidson, Curtin University Professor Chris Del Mar, Bond University Ms Lisa Delaney, La Trobe University Dr Kathryn Dwan, Australian National University Professor John Dwyer, University of New South Wales Mr Chris Fox, La Trobe University Professor Jeff rey Fuller, Flinders University, SA Dr John Furler, University of Melbourne Dr Gerard Gill, University of Tasmania Department of Rural Health Associate Professor Jennene Greenhill, Flinders University, SA Professor Karen Grimmer-Somers, University of South Australia Professor Mark Harris, University of New South Wales Ms Sheila Keene, University of Sydney Dr
    [Show full text]
  • No. 12 Ms Alison Greig
    Submission No 12 THE PROMOTION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING HEALTH-RELATED INFORMATION OR PRACTICES Name: Ms Alison Greig Date Received: 13/12/2013 The Hon Leslie Williams Committee on Health Care Complaints Commission Parliament House Macquarie Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 13 December 2013 By email [email protected] PURPOSE OF SUBMISSION AND SCALE OF INQUIRY In response to the invitation by the Committee for submissions to the inquiry into the ‘promotion of false or misleading health-related information or practices’ we thank you for the opportunity for making this submission. INTRODUCTION We note that the inquiry terms of reference include: (1) inquiring into and reporting upon measures to address the promotion of ‘unscientific’ health- related information or practices that depart from ‘accepted medical practice’ which may be detrimental to individual or public health, with focus on individuals and organisations that are not ‘recognised’ health practitioners (Terms of Reference (a), (b) and (c)). (2) the adequacy of the powers of the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) to investigate such individuals or organisations; and (3) the capacity, appropriateness and effectiveness of the HCCC to take enforcement action against such individuals or organisations. We will address the inquiry terms of reference regarding (2) and (3) together below. Before we do so, we address point (1) in the section immediately following. We understand that the expression ‘unrecognised’ health practitioner (as used in the inquiry terms) refers to a health practitioner who is not subject to the registration scheme under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law for the reason that the Law does not specifically extend to the services that the practitioner offers.
    [Show full text]
  • Casualties of Corporate Medicine: the Jenny Burke Story
    Casualties of Corporate Medicine The Jennie Burke Story Written by Eve Hillary Filed November 1, 2003 Do not read this article unless you agree to the following conditions: This article should not be construed as medical advice which should be sought from a qualified medical practitioner. Medical issues mentioned in this article do not refer to appropriate life saving procedures and drugs, but to harmful and unnecessary ones. The author asserts copyright. This article is deemed to be in the public interest and may be distributed for assessment and commentary by authorized persons and stakeholders in the public interest. For any other purpose please contact the author: [email protected] Part One Humble Beginnings Build it and they will come. - Field of Dreams 1989 Jennie Burke spends most of her work days peering down a microscope, but she isn’t sure how long she will be allowed to continue her work. She is known in international scientific circles as having achieved groundbreaking work in the field of environmental sensitivity testing and in observing aberrant cell behaviour in patients with chronic illness, including cancer. Born and raised in Australia, Jennie has been bestowed with many honours including an Honorary Doctorate for her contribution to wholistic medicine, a field of medicine that treats patients on the levels of mind and body using both alternative and orthodox approaches. None of the accolades however, have come from the Australian medical and scientific community. On the contrary, her achievements have made her some powerful enemies. Jennie Burke was born in Brisbane, Australia in 1951 when it was still a sleepy town built around the scenic Brisbane River that meandered through its central district.
    [Show full text]
  • And Its Regulation), Sept 8, 2017
    Seminar: The Advertising of Therapeutic Goods and Services (and its regulation), Sept 8, 2017 In March 2016, a seminar on this topic attracted over 100 people to the Sydney University Health Law Centre. One outcome was a decision to hold a follow-up seminar in Melbourne in Sept-Oct 2017. The 2017 seminar is being organised by the Monash Health Law and Society Group and the Monash School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine in association with Melbourne University Law School, Choice (the Australian Consumers’ Association), Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) and the Foundation for Effective Markets and Governance (FEMAG). There have been significant developments since last year’s seminar. These include the: • Australian Consumer Law Review Final Report, • Productivity Commission's final report on the enforcement and administration arrangements underpinning the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), • Advertising compliance and enforcement strategy for the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, • The National Code of Conduct for Non-Registered Health Providers, which became Victorian Law on 1 February 2017. Also, several relevant consultations by the Medical and Medical Devices Review including, • The Regulatory Framework for Advertising Therapeutic Goods, • Reforms to the regulatory framework for complementary medicines and • Enhancing sanctions and penalties in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Venue: the Monash Law Chambers (555 Lonsdale St, Melbourne, 3000) Program: (as at July 14, 2017). 09:00-09:30 Registration, coffee 09:30-09:40 Welcome, Introduction and Morning Chair – Alan Kirkland, CEO Choice 09:40-10:00 Case study - AMI-MWI-AMHC saga – Assoc Prof Ken Harvey, School of Public Health & Preventative Medicine, Monash University 10:00-11:00 Panel and audience discussion: Addressing the challenges in implementing the multi-regulator model for Australian Consumer Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmed Support for J'accuse 1. Mr Julian Burnside AO QC 2. Mr George Newhouse SC 3. Mr John Menadue AO 4. Marist Fathers Ju
    Confirmed support for J’Accuse 1. Mr Julian Burnside AO QC 2. Mr George Newhouse SC 3. Mr John Menadue AO 4. Marist Fathers Justice Prace and Integrity of Creation 5. Sisters of Mercy - Parramatta 6. Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes (NSW) Social Justice 7. Asylum Seeker Resource Centre 8. Marist Sisters Social Justice Committee 9. Margaret Ursula Eldridge AM 10. Bridge for Asylum Seekers 11. Balmain Uniting Church 12. Dr Rosie Scott 13. Anglican Social Responsibilities Commission 14. International Social Service Australia 15. Combined Refugee Action Group Geelong 16. Queenscliff Rural Action for Refugees 17. Reverend Paul Devitt Social Justice Group of St Mary & St Joseph, Orange NSW 18. Rev Peter Botha Port Stephens Uniting Church 19. Dawn O’Neil AM 20. Associate Professor Michael Griffith Australian Catholic University 21. Professor Allison Weir Australian Catholic University 22. Professor Spencer Zifcak Australian Catholic University 23. Professor Jude Butcher AM Australian Catholic University 24. Dr Janet Hunt Australian National University 25. Professor William Maley AM Australian National University 26. Ms Frances Milne Balmain for Refugees 27. Isobel Blackthorn Bega Valley Rural Australians for Refugees 28. George Winston AM Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group 29. Mr David Hair Bosco Social Justice Group 30. Sister Suzette Clark Catholic Religious Australia 31. Ms Anne Lane Catholics in Coalition for Justice and Peace 32. Mr Michael Moore CEO Public Health Association of Australia & President Elect of the World Federation of Public Health associations 33. The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO Chair, Children’s Rights International RFD QC 34. Jacquie Tinkler Charles Sturt University 35. Dr Donna Bridges Charles Sturt University 36.
    [Show full text]
  • VICTORIAN HISTORICAL Journal
    VICTORIAN HISTORICAL Journal VOLUME 855 NO. 2 DECEMBER 2014 The Victorian Historical Journal is a fully refereed journal dedicated to Australian, and especially Victorian, history published twice yearly by the Royal Historical Society of Victoria. The Royal Historical Society of Victoria acknowledges the support of the Victorian Government through Arts Victoria—Department of Premier and Cabinet. Publication of this edition of the Victorian Historical Journal is made possible with the support of the estate of the late Edward Wilson. Cover: Bust of Justice Thomas Fellows (Courtesy of Supreme Court of Victoria.) Sculptor: James Scurry VICTORIAN HISTORICAL JOURNAL Volume 85, Number 2 December 2014 Articles Sincere Thanks ....................Richard Broome and Marilyn Bowler 185 Introduction............................................................Marilyn Bowler 186 Exodus and Panic? Melbourne’s Reaction to the Bathurst Gold Discoveries of May 1851 ...............Douglas Wilkie 189 The Birth of the Melbourne Cricket Club: a New Perspective on its Foundation Date.................Gerald O’Collins and David Webb 219 The Point Hicks Controversy: the Clouded Facts ............................................................................Trevor Lipsombe 233 Charles La Trobe and the Geelong Keys.....................Murray Johns 254 Attempts to Deal with Thistles in Mid-19th Century Victoria..............................................................John Dwyer 276 So New and Exotic! Gita Yoga in Australia from the 1950s to Today. ...............................................Fay
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Judy Wilyman's Phd Thesis
    RESPONSE TO JUDY WILYMAN’S PHD THESIS ON VACCINATION POLICY - AN ASSESSMENT OF ERRORS, OMISSIONS, MISREPRESENTATIONS1 INTRODUCTION In 2015 noted anti-vaccination campaigner Judy Wilyman submitted a doctoral thesis to the University of Wollongong. Called “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy”, Wilyman’s thesis described what she calls “the political framework in which policy is affected by biased science or undone [underfunded] science” and claims “the existence of institutional barriers to carrying out independent research, including on topics unwelcome to groups with vested interests”. She included collusion between industry and health authorities, particularly that the World Health Organisation “is perceived to be out of touch with global communities and it is controlled by the interests of corporations and the World Bank”. The thesis was prepared under the supervision of Prof Brian Martin, within the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts (ie not a medical science discipline). Two unnamed reviewers of the thesis were appointed. One approved it, and one rejected it outright. A third reviewer was found who offered a positive review, despite some initial issues which were apparently addressed. The University accepted her thesis and awarded her a PhD. The thesis, and the approval process, raised an instant and negative response from a wide range of sources – see a selection of those responses at the end of this document. The University’s response to that criticism was that Wilyman’s research was conducted and examined under high standards, and it spoke in defence of academic freedom.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 – the Race Where Everyone Is a Winner
    Newsletter 25—26 June 2020 COVID-19 – the race where everyone is a winner. In Australia, and across the world, our medical scientists are working hard to control and counter COVID-19 – developing vaccines, re-testing and modifying old drugs and inventing new ones. It’s not just about the vaccine. Whether an old drug for TB, a genetically modified drug or a herbal remedy, everything is ‘on the table’. Biologists are analysing the genetics and biochemistry of the virus. Pathologists are describing the fatal effects of the virus. Immunologists and biochemists are investigating our bodies’ responses. Microbiologists are finding ways to inhibit the growth of the virus. Medical doctors are trying to diagnose the infection quickly and recommend appropriate preventive measures. Epidemiologists are tracing the spread of the illness. Hundreds of clinical trials are underway, from finding faster ways to test to improved ways of administering vaccines. As the death toll rises each day, we desperately need all our tireless, quietly achieving biomedical scientists. Despite our record of overall good health, some Australians have turned their backs on science. They ‘believe’ in so-called ‘Complementary and Alternative Medicine’, which does not complement scientific medical practice and which is certainly no alternative. Let’s hope that this pandemic demonstrates to many unthinking Australians, the real value of our medical scientists. After all, they come from the ranks of our best and our brightest. GO MEDICAL SCIENCE! A special thanks to people who volunteer for clinical trials. Without their generosity, research would not be possible. Be a publicly-minded Aussie, put your hand up to volunteer if you are in a cohort of those needed for a particular trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Training in Regional Victoria: a Collaboration Between the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University
    Medical Training in Regional Victoria: a collaboration between the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University Anthony T. Baker, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University and the LH Martin Institute, University of Melbourne. Addressing the Maldistribution of the Medical Workforce in Australia The undersupply of medical workforce for rural and remote locations has been a persistent and long-term problem in Australia, and several other countries. Looking at the availability of medical practitioners to the Australian population on a per capita basis, the rural and remote regions may appear well-served by GPs in that the number of GPs per capita is greater in remote and very remote regions compared to major cities. Of course, a greater number of GPs per capita does not mean that medical services are easier to access in sparsely-populated remote regions. Compared to GPs, the situation with specialists is more serious with the number of specialists per unit population 3.7 times greater for major cities as compared to remote and very remote areas. There have been many attempts to address this maldistribution of medical services in Australia with the use of education and training programs to influence health workforce distribution having been a major focus of the Commonwealth health portfolio for many years. A major feature of the focus on improving health workforce distribution is an acceptance that rural background and substantial training in a rural setting increase the likelihood of pursuing a rural career upon qualification as a medical practitioner. Most Australian medical schools receive Commonwealth funds under the Rural Clinical Training and Support (RCTS) program.
    [Show full text]