Advertising industry supports greater openness in information on medicines
A communications industry debating group has accepted a motion that barriers
to the communication of information about prescription medicines damage
public health.
Meeting at the House of Commons earlier this week, The Debating Group
heard Dr Trevor Jones, director general of the Association of the British
Pharmaceutical Industry, and Michael Stone, director of the Patients’
Association, propose the motion. They were opposed by Dr Howard Stoate,
MP, chairman of the All-Party Pharmacy Group, and Allan Asher, the Consumers’
Association’s director of campaigns.
Dr Jones said that the debate was about providing information on medicines
to the public and not about advertising them.
“Patients are more likely to take medicines when they have better
information about them,” he argued. “We are seeking an agreement
that pharmaceutical companies and others can use informed, objective,
valued and reviewed information about the medicines they so carefully
research and manufacture, and make this information available to the public.”
Even officially sanctioned information was denied to the public, Dr Jones
said. Companies were prohibited from referring to their own patient information
leaflets or summaries of product characteristics on corporate websites,
even though these were published by the ABPI in its Medicines Compendium
and were freely available on the internet (emc.vhn.net).
“This form of censorship, for that is what it is, should not exist.
Good medicines information is not unacceptable simply because the pharmaceutical
companies provide it, themselves” Dr Jones said.
Mr Stone argued that if patients were not given information they would
find it for themselves, but that it would not always be good information.
He proposed a national patient information commission to set clear standards
for medicines information.
Unsuccessfully opposing the motion, Dr Stoate said that the subtext of
the debate was a push towards direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription
medicines. Dr Stoate argued that the barriers Dr Jones saw were not there.
“There is hardly a shortage of information or a barrier,” Dr
Stoate said. “It is just that there is no way for a consumer [using
the internet] to sort out good information from downright lies.”
He argued that it was necessary to look to the United States to see what
would happen in Europe. “Should public awareness of medicines be
driven by whether a manufacturer decides to advertise it? Who is going
to promote generics? Some companies spend more on advertising than on
research and development. That will rebound on us and unbalance our drug
budget.”
The solution, Dr Stoate said, had been identified by the All-Party Pharmacy
Group last year (PJ, 8 December 2001, p806). “There should be a kite-marked
information system involving co-operation between different groups giving
clear statements of available treatments with their advantages and disadvantages,”
he explained.
Mr Asher said that the pharmaceutical industry was trying to change the
meaning of the word “information” to suit its own purposes.
“Markets fail when frail or vulnerable people see a vain hope for
themselves on television,” he said. “Advertisements cannot convey
full, fair and impartial information.”
He pointed out that a Consumers’ Association survey had found that
people did not trust pharmaceutical companies to be a source of impartial
information. “The last thing we need is hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of information that actually forms a barrier to the improvement
of public health,” he said.
The motion was carried overwhelmingly on a show of hands. The Debating
Group can be found on the internet at www.debatinggroup.org.uk.
|
