I think that while most doctors are 100% committed to patients, there are some that are 100% committed to their own pocketbooks and self promotion, and thus will write a prescription that promotes the pharma industry he or she is being paid by. Also, the pharma industry often provides vacations, meals, money, junkets, and all expenses paid conferences, rather than merely pens or a cup of coffee. Perhaps blocked access is due to the fact that pharma isn't unbiased, and hospitals are trying to provide an ethical service to patients as well as promote ethical practices by their staff. One can always access the pharma websites on one's own.

Thank you as well for a reasoned follow up to my commentary. I agree that there are many bogus or untested remedies out there, even masquerading as legitimate treatments or cures. These sites take advantage of the anxiety or even desperation of individuals to help his or her medical condition. I am particularly concerned about sites that target cancer patients. I also agree that it is the drug companies that are often funding important research and bringing drugs, chemotherapy, or other types of therapy such as genetic manipulation, viruses, or monoclonal antibodies, to treatment phase. At least the latter is legitimate and tested, and may or may not prove beneficial to patients. So many treatments are a result of pharma's investment in R&D, and they are saving lives. It is vital that both doctors and patients know about the clinical trials. The problem lies in pharma industry having the perception of bias and profit regarding one treatment over another one, regardless of what is actually best for the patient. One sees this most of all in TV ads, which are developed to sell a product. An ethical doctor must place the patient first and have full information about a treatment, and not just hear or read "the rosy picture" as is often the case on industry websites. On the other hand, FDA does regulate, and provides a usually comprehensive list of side effects as well as benefits. I must add though that in recent years even the FDA has been perceived as not always doing their job and even having bias, what with the cross hiring between FDA and big pharma. Can the FDA be completely trusted? Hopefully so. This is a tough question, I don't believe in censorship of any kind. However, medical and hospital ethics can create such dilemmas.

Perhaps by allowing doctors access to pharma iindustry drugs in the developmental phase, the industry is hoping doctors will lobby for their clinical trials. Until a drug is shown to be efficacious in clinical trials, is there much point having access to the information? The drug may be proven to be worthless or even dangerous, or it might be lifesaving or even a cure. FDA approval and peer review journals vett the whole process so it is not the company that is the sole source of information, which is the case in the developmental phase. Yes, it would be interesting for doctors to know about drugs in research, but until it is approved and vetted, are they (the drugs) really going to help their patients who are in the hospital anyway? Doctors can still find out on their own time, if hospitals don't wish to faciltate the linkage.
I am curious about how this question is handled in countries such as India, although I realize that Indian pharmaceutical companies are regulated by the FDA and European standards when seeking to market to the USA and Europe. What about when the Indian market is involved?
I am a layperson, and so my knowledge is limited. Perhaps a doctor will comment.
Iit is such an interesting topic.