Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Banning all drug promotion is the best option pending major reforms

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drug promotion should be evaluated according to its impact on health, access to information, informed consent, and wealth. Drug promotion currently does more harm than good to each of these objectives because it is usually misleading. This is a systemic problem. Whilst improved regulation and education will address it to some degree, major reforms to payment systems for drug companies and doctors are also required. Until all these systemic reforms can be put in place, the best policy option is to ban the promotion of drugs to doctors and the public. Consequently, pending major reforms, it is appropriate for governments to restrict drug promotion as much as is politically achievable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mansfield PR. Healthy Skepticism’s new AdWatch: understanding drug promotion. Med J Aust 2003; 179:644–645.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mansfield P. Accepting what we can learn from advertising’s mirror of desire. BMJ. 2004; 329:1487–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Garai’s challenge: The 40th anniversary of the inspiration for Healthy Skepticism. Healthy Skepticism International News 2003 October; 21:10. [Online], Available: healthyskepticism.org/publications/ editions/2003/10.php 21 6/05.

  4. Goleman D. Vital lies, simple truths: the psychology of self-deception. London: Bloomsbury; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wilkes MS, Doblin BH, Shapiro MF. Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journals: experts’ assessments. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116:912–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Langton PE, Hankey GJ, Eikelboom JW. Cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib (Vioxx): lessons learned and unanswered questions. Med J Aust 2004; 181:524–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Few clues from UK yellow card scheme about Vioxx ADRs? Scrip World Pharmaceutical News 2005 28, February; 3033:2.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996; 125:605–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sagarin BJ, Cialdini RB, Rice WE, Serna SB. Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 2002; 83:526–541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Copi IM, Cohen C. Introduction to logic. 9th edition. New York: Macmillan; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mansfield PR. MaLAM, a medical lobby for appropriate marketing of pharmaceuticals. Med J Aust 1997; 167:590–592.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bazerman MH, Watkins MD. Predictable Surprises: the disasters you should have seen coming and how to prevent them. Boston: Harvard Business School; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mansfield PR. Healthy Scepticism about Pfizer and Searle’s promotion of celecoxib in Australia. Healthy Skepticism International News 2000; 18: March/April. [Online], Available 21/5/2005.http:// healthyskepticism.org/publications/editions/2000/IN0004.htm. 21/5/2005.

  14. Mansfield PR. Banned drug’s world of faceless victims. Independent Weekly (Adelaide) 2004; October 10–16:9.

  15. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [Online], Available http:// www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes. 1/ 3/2005.

  16. 2003: The year in review. Industrial interests versus public health: the gap is growing. Prescrire International 2004; 13,(70):71–76.

  17. Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, Himmelstein DU, Wolfe SM, Bor DH. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002; 287:2215–2220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Drug promotion does more harm than good. [Online], Available. http:/ /healthyskepticism.org/harm.php 21/6/05.

  19. de Laat E, Windmeijer F, Douven R. How does pharmaceutical marketing influence doctors’ prescribing behaviour? CPB Netherlands, Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis The Hague, March 2002 [Online], Available: 21/6/2005 www.cpb.nl/nl/pub/bijzonder/38. 21/6/2005.

  20. Langton PE, Hankey GJ, Eikelboom JW. Cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib (Vioxx): lessons learned and unanswered questions. Med J Aust 2004; 181:524–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. COX-2 inhibitors update: Do journal publications tell the full story? Therapeutics Letter 43, November/December 2001 & January 2002. [Online], Available: 1/3/http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter43.htm. 1/ 3/2005.

  22. Kay J. The truth about markets. London: Penguin; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mansfield PR, Mintzes B, Richards D, Toop LJ. Direct to consumer advertising policy is at the crossroads of competing pressures and health needs (editorial). BMJ 2005; 330:5–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ayers I. and Braithwaite J. Responsive regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sweet M. Doctors and drug companies are locked in “vicious circle”. BMJ 2004; 329:998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mansfield PR. A 5 minute read re drug promotion: RCT. Poster presented at 8th World Congress on Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics Brisbane 1–6 August 2004.

  27. Katz D, Mansfield P, Goodman R, Tiefer L, Merz J. Psychological aspects of gifts from drug companies. JAMA. 2003; 290:2404–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rogers WA, Mansfield PR, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Jureidini JN. The ethics of pharmaceutical industry relationships with medical students. Med J Aust 2004; 180:411–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Practice, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Peter R. Mansfield (Research Fellow)

Authors
  1. Peter R. Mansfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Director, Healthy Skepticism Inc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mansfield, P.R. Banning all drug promotion is the best option pending major reforms. J. Bioethical Inquiry 2, 75–81 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02448846

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02448846

Keywords

Search

Navigation