Well, Consumers International recently commissioned a background report on issues of unethical drug promotion taking place in developing countries. The report was compiled by leading experts in the field of unethical drug promotion - Dr. Peter Mansfield of Healthy Skepticism, Dr. Maneerat Layton and Ms. Joana Ramos. As part of their research, the authors uncovered a number of examples of unethical drug promotion in Asia and Latin America.
Here a good example from the study: a GSK ad run in a health practitioners journal, India, 2005.
Why is this irresponsible?
Inappropriate indications... Depending on the price, Flutibact is an acceptable option for infected eczema. However, it is NOT appropriate for the other promoted indications: atopic dermatitis and contact dermatitis because unnecessary use of antibiotics promotes the development of resistant bacteria. Promotion of inappropriate indications is in breach of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) code.
Omission of required information... The advertisement does not disclose any adverse effects or precautions. The IFPMA Code states that 'Particular care should be taken that essential information as to pharmaceutical products' safety, for example, contra-indications, precautions and side effects, is appropriately and consistently communicated, subject to the legal, regulatory and medical practices of each nation.'
Claim of remarkable safety!!! The advertisement asserts that Flutibact is 'remarkably safe'. The IFPMA Code states that 'The word "safe" should not be used without qualification' and 'Claims should not be stronger than scientific evidence warrants, and every effort should be made to avoid ambiguity.' This also contravenes WHO Ethical Criteria.
This is just one example of irresponsible Big Pharma promotions which can, ultimatley, put consumer health at risk. You can find out plenty more on the subject by visiting Marketing Overdose
Thursday, 7 February 2008
So what exactly is irresponsible drug promotion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
What We Could Do Without
Amazingly, with the pharmaceutical industry, the amount spent by them on marketing is far greater than the amount spent on research and innovation, as it approaches 30 billion annually spent on their marketing efforts, as this presently takes priority over the research and development, so it seems.
Marketing in some form exists with every business regardless of the industry of the business and its purpose. Essentially, marketing in itself is a complex activity- consisting of many specialty elements of various areas and levels, typically of an aggressive nature. However, with the pharmaceutical industry, marketing needs to become more specialized and altered due to the delicate nature of health care in order to prevent harm and ensure quality health care for all. Tactics that ignore such caution and consideration possibly could cause harm to patients in a number of ways, as this occurs presently. And recently, the marketing exposure of the drug industry has become an unfortunate issue for this industry for many reasons that remain a reality aside from what drug PR firms may try and tell us, as presently it seems as if the pharmaceutical industry, once viewed as very ethical, are now viewed as motivated by profit and greed. Such unwise and irresponsible methods include:
1. Advertising directly to the consumer. This method of bypassing what should entirely be decided by the heath care provider, as disregarding the determining factor of the heath care provider can possibly lead to inappropriate prescribing of certain advertised meds due to the demands of an unqualified patient who believed the content of such an advertisement that suggests that they are a candidate for a particular drug involved in the advertisement. Furthermore, it potentially removes the discretion of the provider regarding the best treatment for the patient through such frequent methods of marketing to potential consumers by such advertisements directly to consumers. Assessment of a patient by a health care provider is required and necessary, most believe, in order to determine the best treatment for a patient, as well as the provider considering their medical history as well as other variables necessary to consider the best course of the patient’s treatment. Ignoring this premise could be damaging to the patient seeking treatment through this possible inaccuracies through efforts provided by the marketing departments of drug companies.
2. Clinical evidence is the ultimate determining factor for treatment selection, after drug sample availability, and this evidence should be utilized by the provider entirely absent of any marketing technique implemented by a drug maker, which may include embellishments and lack of necessary evaluation of such patients. Analysis of such evidence is very necessary for the ultimate benefit of the patient.
3. People take issue with the use of celebrities who are paid greatly by some drug companies, possibly to attempt to expand or create a certain medical condition, so the celebrity will discuss a certain disease state determined by who paid such a celebrity. Many examples of this occurring have been noted by others, and can lead to both inappropriate prescribing and over-prescribing of these meds so often promoted to consumers. This may be appropriate if one is attempting to sell a car, but health care is more of an important topic of concern.
4. Education not only trough sponsored doctors of the drug company, but also statements from various medical groups sponsored as well by the industry for purposes of endorsement have been considered inappropriate for the welfare of public health through awareness techniques such as these methods initiated by marketing departments lacking thorough clinical evaluation that is necessarily for the best treatment of patients seeking care or concern of their health. The introduction of ethics would correct such fallacies as well as others mentioned in this article so far.
5. The over-saturation of drug company sales reps who in the past have initiated questionable tactics upon the direction of their marketing department of their drug company employer, regardless of the validity or legality of such tactics that are normally not questioned or known by the drug reps in the first place. Such forms of manipulation include for some time questionable inducements for the health care providers. This is allowed, yet many medical establishments are progressively prohibiting the activity or presence of drug reps at their locations. With the pharmaceutical company, sales reps are required by their employers to follow the direction of their marketing departments without exception. And the questioning of these directives is not tolerated by their employers, and the company’s image becomes more damaged as a result.
In the past, the pharmaceutical industry was viewed as research-driven, innovative, and patient focused- entirely for the benefit of patient heath. This is why the industry was at a time viewed as an ethical one. Clearly, this is not the case today. Instead, many view this industry as one with their primary goal is to initiate market-driven profiteering, regardless of the attempts of the industry to convince the public otherwise, as stated previously by their supporters. So the view by the public of drug companies has been damaging to what should be a concerning degree. So the pharma industry seems to be in great need of repair and re-evaluation of their purpose. This should performed by action instead of empty statements by the industry. It is the author’s opinion that actions by this industry for the sole benefit for the patients are displaced if they exist, unless my interpretation and perception are flawed greatly. The repair can only be done by the refocus of the industry towards convincing the public of the industry’s concern of their restoration of their health in several ways. One way is to always make the medical community aware and with conviction that their products are solely for the benefit of the patients, which is rarely discussed in full detail with such people. Fortunately, medications historically have been for this reason and are often necessary for the restoration or benefit of the health of those in medical need. The need should be more clearly defined by those who determine this, and these are the health care providers, who are caregivers, and not marketers. In summary, the medicines now available to us are for the benefit of the patients, and not the developers.
“Marketing is the act of making something seem better than it really is” --- Suso Banderas
Dan Abshear
,
.
Post a Comment