Story from BBC NEWS:

Controversy over US drug adverts

By Matthew Davis BBC News, Washington

The US pharmaceutical industry has just brought in a new code to tackle concerns that "direct-to-consumer advertising" is misleading the public on the benefits and risks of prescription drugs.

But for some, the latest attempt to regulate this controversial meeting point of commerce and medicine does not go far enough.

Turn on the television in the US and it will not be long before you are being sold the latest solution to anything from managing your menopause to beating your erectile dysfunction problem.

Drug manufacturers say such adverts - often comprising emotional testimony from sufferers - allow people to take control of their own health.

But as greater access to information continues to influence the relationship between doctor and patient, the quality of that information has become more important than ever.

Consumer groups and politicians have been getting increasingly concerned about the over-selling of the benefits, and under-selling of the risks, of prescription drugs.

Criticism grew into a chorus last year after safety scandals hit several heavily-advertised medications, including the pain-reliever Vioxx.

New code

In a sign of the continuing controversy over consumer ads, the industry's average monthly spending on them fell this month for the first time in six years, from $358m to $351m.

We must ask ourselves: 'Are these ads, which we know are costing billions, properly educating patients or just peddling expensive products?' Senator Bill Frist (R)

At around the same time, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America unveiled a set of voluntary codes designed to restore confidence.

The PhRMA says companies should pitch adult products at adult audiences and urges firms to fully educate doctors about new medicines before launching their ad campaigns.

Adverts should be clearer about the conditions the drug can treat - and the major risks involved, the PhRMA's code says.

PhRMA president Billy Tauzin says patients "need accurate and timely information and should be encouraged to discuss diseases and treatment options with their physicians".

But opponents say the move is just a sop, designed to stave off the prospect of Congress taking sterner, legislative action.

Rob Schneider, director of Consumers Union's prescription drug reform effort, www.PrescriptionForChange.org, said: "What we clearly need is more authority and resources to ensure that all marketing, not just the amount spent on direct-to-consumer advertising, is honest and accurate."

Patient demands

The leading Republican lawmaker in the Senate, Bill Frist, launched a recent broadside, calling for a two-year moratorium on advertising after a drug's launch, so any latent ill-effects can be picked up on.

He argues that "mindless drug advertising" is driving up the costs of medicines.

"Turn on your TV, and within 15 minutes you'll be bombarded by dreamy ads that suggestively over-promise and, even more likely, will make you and your children experts on erectile dysfunction," Mr Frist told the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco.

"We must ask ourselves: 'Are these ads, which we know are costing billions, properly educating patients or just peddling expensive products?'"

Drug advertising, he added, "leads patients to demand from their doctor drugs that they may not need or, even worse, that might expose them to risks they didn't know about".

Drug advertising has the potential to educate patients about the latest therapies.

Indeed, a recent study by the US Food and Drug Administration found ads increased awareness of new treatments, and that most doctors felt they helped discussions about health matters with their patients.

But the study also found that adverts unnecessarily increased patients' anxieties about their health, and that doctors felt under pressure to prescribe specific medicines.

Changing relationship

Doctors say that consumer ads increase demands from patients for specific medication - which may or may not be suitable for them to take.

In June, the American Medical Association voted to further study the issue because of "concerns about the effects of these ads on the patient-doctor relationship and health care costs".

The AMA supports patients' increased access to drug information, but "questions whether DTC drug advertising, designed to sell a product, provides the objective and accurate information patients need".

Dr Edward Langston, a family medicine practitioner and an AMA trustee, told the BBC: "There is a lot of information out there, but the difficulty is that patients don't know what is good and what is bad.

"Television advertising tends to give a very unbalanced view, an unrealistic expectation of what a drug can do, and how it can be used.

"The new guidelines are a great first step, but we will have to see how much discipline companies have."

---
hey morons, most of you passed the law in 1996 that allowed this propaganda of pills that do little to keep people well. or don't you remember? big pharma has plenty of pills to make you forget.

"ask your doctor if 'trademarked name' is right for you", that is utter crap. using crafted advertspeak to get around the 'legal claims' nonsense should be hint one. thereby calling anything ingestible not manufactured by big pharma as a 'supplement', and proceeding to pay off the legislature and the courts to ban as many as possible, hint two.

with all the kneejerk press methamphetamine has received, there is little mentioned about the painkiller problem this country faces. not that i'm for meth addicts, let's just keep it in perspective.