| October
5, 2007
Advertising Prescription Drugs To Consumers
In Europe Bad For Public Health, Say Experts
As the European parliament looks at the possibility of allowing
pharmaceutical companies more freedom in direct-to-consumer prescription
drug promotion, experts caution in this week's British Medical
Journal (BMJ) that this could be detrimental for public health.
Les Toop and Dee Mangin, University of Otago, New Zealand, write
that as the European Parliament considers opening up this type
of advertising with no restriction on the type of media, the implications
for public health are considerable.
There are just two developed nations that allow direct-to-consumer
prescription drug advertising - The USA and New Zealand. Both
these countries have seen a swelling body of opposition to their
existing advertising laws.
The writers point out that New Zealand's health system is more
similar to Europe's than the US system is. In 2006 pharmaceutical
companies spent more than $5 billion on consumer advertising.
Tens of millions of dollars were spent in New Zealand.
Growing concern triggered a New Zealand Ministry of Health public
consultation in 2000. It was decided that advertising could continue
with self-regulation. A promise of a future review of compliance
with the regulations never materialized.
Advertising has become more extensive in New Zealand, the writers
explain. They give as examples the promotion of celcoxib and refecoxib
on television - the adverts were targeted at the elderly for long-term
use. The promotion resulted in a considerable increase in prescribing,
despite early warning of these drugs' cardiac risks. A number
of TV adverts for oral terbinafine (toenail infection treatment)
led to a doubling of prescriptions all over the country within
a few weeks.
In 2003 the New Zealand government decided to ban direct-to-consumer
advertising, in response to growing concern from health care professionals
and the public. However, the government has been unable to get
the required legislation through. This is despite huge opposition
for direct-to-consumer advertising.
Europe could learn from the New Zealand experience, say the authors.
The writers argue that if you allow industry funded objective
information you will end up with consumer choices being manipulated.
It will increase the pharmaceuticalization of health and do nothing
to help consumers make better decisions. The public will be more
exposed to new medicines, many of which are no better than existing
and cheaper ones - new medicines of which their long-term safety
is unknown.
Allowing direct-to-consumer advertising pushes up drug costs
- not a good thing for overly stretched health budgets. The result
would be, on balance, a net harm for public health overall.
Source: www.medicalnewstoday.com
Comments:
Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements have
made every "state and stage of existence " a pathology
(example, PMS, Menopause, Restless Leg Syndrome, Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome, Etc) in the need of pharmaceutical 'intervention'.
The pharmaceutical companies are spreading awareness to
the public of these "new diseases" and "new
medications " to treat these through direct to consumer
advertising and are thus generating billions of dollars
in profits. We are already seeing this in USA and New Zealand,
the two countries that allow for direct to consumer advertising.
The implications of this on public health has been soaring
medical insurance costs, toxic side effects and tensions
between doctors and patients, who increasingly badger doctors
for the drugs they've seen on TV.
Over a decade ago, Dr. Rath exposed the truth about pharmaceutical
companies interest in making profits, not curing diseases.
Dr.Rath's research proves that synergistic action of specific
natural nutrients and not synthetic molecules is the key
to human health. To read more about this topic please visit
www.drrathresearch.org
and www.cellularhealthtraining.org |
|
