64 SOCIAL SCIENTIST others like high dose estrogen-progesterone drugs, anabolic steroids like orabolin, durab olin etc. ; and the quinoline group of drugs present in many preparations prescribed for diarrhoea. Many useful drugs, on the other hand, are in short supply and even the public sector does not market anymore a simple and effective pain killer like aspirin. Many available drug combinations have no therapeutic basis, and at least one component (sometirres all) are provided in amounts not enough to treat even a mouse ! The addition of this small component is a mere ruse to boost up the price—and the profit margin. The market has a plethora of such drugs and it is humanly impossible to provide a comprehensive list, pointing out the irrationality of each drug. A question which naturally arises is as to why and how clinicians prescribe hazardous, irrational or non-essential drugs. The standard of teaching in most of our medical colleges is extremely poor. Moreover, there is no provision for continuing education in a field that sees rapid advances (the few such programmes that are available are offered by pharmaceutical companies!). Standard journals are not only expensive, but often doctors show no interest in reading them even when they have access to them. Thus, for the busy medical practitioner, the literature distributed by representatives of pharmaceutical companies becomes the only way of updating their knowledge of therapy and medical technology. False and exaggerated claims for a drug, quoting journals and textbooks out of context, withholding essential information regarding side-effects of drugs are freely indulged in by the industry (p. 176). The incentives offered by the compaines to the doctors are to be seen to be believed. Little does the patient realise that his life is in the hands of such ignorant 'learned' people. No doubt, all doctors are not equally to be blamed or equally ignorant but the propaganda material of the drug companies is good enough to coufuse even the best among them. It is difficult even for the most conscientious to know and remember the ingre-didnts in each preparation and the quantities in which they are present. The Hathi Committee recommended the abolition of the brand-name, the name given by a company to its product—and suggested the use of the generic or chemical names. (This is the very first principle that every student is taught in the pharmacology class but no teacher remembers in it the clinical ward !) The drug companies fought this recommendation tooth and nail, with the specious argument that this will not allow a doctor to discriminate between a low quality and a high quality drug. While the problem of spurious and poor quality drugs is indeed a serious one, and reflects the inefficiency of the government in tackling it, it is not true that all drugs marketed by 'reputed' companies are of standard quality, nor is it true that those produced by small, indigenous manufacturers are always of poor quality. In fact, many iMNCs only market products manufactured by small indigenous producers, appending theif* brand names. Brand names help to boost prices and profit margins. Consider, for example, the instance of how a drug is sold at different