Discussion: I was shocked by a conversation (not meant for my ears) of the pharmaceutical company with my attending physician. It was clear that my physician was financially motivated!

It is worth paying attention to the following logic: If the incentive of doctors did not pay the pharmaceutical companies, they would not invest a great deal of resources in it. On the other hand, if the motivation affects the doctors (and it undoubtedly does), the doctors are in an ethical conflict because without the incentive, the patient might not need medication but rather a lifestyle and diet change.

Physicians' incentive for prescription drugs is widespread, seemingly contrary to the ethics rules, and circumvented in sophisticated ways. The doctor receives funding for conferences, trips, gifts, events, etc. In return, doctors aspire to provide the company's prescriptions. Medical campaigning is not outlawed and has no uniform and transparent rules. In cases where drug companies introduce a new drug, the rewards are even more generous! Is there a regulatory failure here? In my opinion, YES. Unfortunately, you will not find (to the best of my knowledge) primary legislation that prohibits this phenomenon. Doctors might argue that medical agitation does not affect them. But if the agitation did not affect the doctor's prescriptions, the drug companies would not have invested so much effort, time, and money!