Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2807

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Findings and conclusions of the NCCC [National Council of Churches of Christ] project on drug advertising
Journal of Drug Issues 1974; 4:310-312

Abstract:

The National Council of Churches of Christ reached the following conclusions about drug promotion: 1) substantial sums of money are spent to promote drugs to the public and to physicians; 2) given no real evidence to the contrary, we are persuaded that there is a link between the promotion of legitimate drugs and drug misuse and abuse; 3) the degree to which drug advertising is a contributing factor to drug abuse and misuse is unknown; 4) drugs have been extensively promoted to the public and physicians for uses beyond those that are medically indicated and, furthermore, a wide range of behaviour, which would ordinarily be considered the normal stresses of everyday living, has been redefined by advertising as symptomatic or indicative or medical problems; 5) a substantial amount of misleading and deceptive advertising has been produced by significant portions of the pharmaceutical industry; 6) comparison of advertising claims with independent evaluations reveal numerous and serious discrepancies; 7) the segmented nature of the present system of drug promotion (manufacturers, advertisers, broadcast and print media, physicians, retailers, and regulators) provides an inadequate system of accountability, except for the restraint of law; 8) failure to accept responsibility for the content and impact of drug promotion results in “buck passing” and little effective regulation; 9) the self-regulatory mechanisms of the pharmaceutical industry, the advertisers and the broadcasting and print media are minimal and ineffective; 10) the producers’ claim that heavy promotion to increase volume lowers cost to the consumer was not persuasive in the absence of specific evidence; 11) the practice among medical journals of relying on drug advertising for a substantial portion of their revenue without a strong advertising policy provides a real possibility of advertisers influencing editorial policy of thejournals; 12) all parties-manufacturers, advertisers, media (broadcast and print), regulators, organized medicine, and retailers-were unwilling to take the lead in investigating the impact of drug advertising on the drug taking patterns of society.

Keywords:
*analysis/United States/drug misuse and abuse/quality of information/quality of prescribing/regulation of promotion/medicalization of problems/promotion costs and volume/ad revenue/editorial freedom/consumer drug prices/ATTITUDES REGARDING PROMOTION: CONSUMERS/PATIENTS/EVALUATION OF PROMOTION: GENERAL QUALITY OF INFORMATION/INFLUENCE OF PROMOTION: CONSUMER DRUG COSTS/INFLUENCE OF PROMOTION: CONSUMERS AND PATIENTS/INFLUENCE OF PROMOTION: MEDICALIZATION OF PROBLEMS/INFLUENCE OF PROMOTION: PRESCRIBING, DRUG USE/REGULATION, CODES, GUIDELINES: INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION/VOLUME OF AND EXPENDITURE ON PROMOTION