Interesting article Lazygun.
I see no problem with a simple register of interests. I note that the title of the article had to be changed as originally it referred to GPs (See note at bottom)
I yield to no one in my admiration for Ben Goldacre -have read Big Pharma, and have signed up to the All Trials petition, but a few comments.
The "best currently available evidence" according to Ben Goldacre in the Guardian article is this large 58 paper metanalysis..
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000352#pmed-1000352-t006
Having read it , three points come to mind.
Firstly, the authors conclusions from the above are....
"The limitations of studies reported in the literature mentioned above mean that we are unable to reach any definitive conclusions about the degree to which information from pharmaceutical companies increases, decreases, or has no effect on the frequency, cost, or quality of prescribing."
They do go on to say that they..
"have found some evidence of increased costs and decreased quality of prescribing. Any conclusions about harm or benefit for patients are speculative because none of the studies that we found examined clinical outcomes"
Not exactly what I was expecting to read, and not as clear cut as one might think reading the Guardian piece.
Secondly, of the 58 papers 29 are from the US, including hospital physicians, as well as generalists. Only 5 are from the UK. The rest are from Canada Australia and Europe. I would imagine the prescribing practices in US hospitals might be different those in general practice in the UK.
Thirdly, the dates of the papers range from the 1960s to 2004, with most of them being in the 1990s. The 5 UK papers range from 1975 to 2000. Things have changed in the last 14 years. Here in the UK GPs are under huge pressure to cut prescribing costs and use generic drugs wherever possible.
I would be somewhat more worried that my GP might not be prescribing a drug I needed, rather than prescribing a drug I didn't need.