corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 3387

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

To what extent should pharmaceutical houses advertise to the public?
Pharmacy Times 1986 Mar; 52:(3):86-88, 90, 93


Abstract:

Thirty pharmacy leaders and practitioners recently participated in a Smith Kline & French symposium, ‘Pharmacists, Patients, and Madison Avenue’. Participants were overwhelmingly against DTCA. Other forms of public advertising, e.g. institutional ads, were considered acceptable. Opening remarks noted that the AMA was not in favor of DTCA, and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association recently released a position paper protecting the physician-patient relationship, suggesting that it might also oppose DTCA. Eight brief speeches were made by: Fletcher (SK&F), Pierpaoli (American Society of Hospital Pharmacists), Scharringhausen (National Association of Retail Druggists), Briggs (National Association of Chain Drug Stores), Sesti (Michigan Pharmacists Association), Cammeyer (American Society of Consultant Pharmacists), Crawford (American Pharmaceutical Association), and Brown (American Association of Retired Persons). Then participants divided into three workshops: Is Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Rx Drugs a Good Idea?; What Should Direct-to-Consumer Ads Say And Not Say?; and Pharmacy Issues in Consumer Advertising of Rx Drugs. Brief workshop reports are given. In the first workshop, there was consensus that DTCA would increase pressure on physicians to prescribe against their better judgement, and it was agreed that trying to educate consumers about drugs prior to the physician-patient relationship was of little value. It was also agreed that DTCA would blur the distinction between Rx and OTC drugs, that drugs should not be named in ads, and that DTCA could increase medical costs and lead to drug abuse.

Keywords:
*analysis/United States/

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963