|
COPIED UNDER FAIR USE Europe seeks to calm nerves over
US-style drug advertising The way medicines are sold has become one of the touchstone issues of modern capitalism. Companies in the US believe they have a right to publicise their products, while Europeans fear that spurious science will be used to push unnecessary cures on people for diseases they did not really have. Today the issue will return to the fore when the European Parliament debates European Commission proposals to make information about drugs more widely available. Yet before the first speech is uttered the matter has already aroused the suspicions many Europeans feel about pharmaceuticals companies. The Commission launched its plan for a modest liberalisation of the rules last year. Its proposals would permit more patient information for Aids, diabetes and asthma treatments. But after a fierce debate the European Parliament at its committee stage agreed an amendment to tighten the rules on drug advertising by broadening the definition of what is banned to include any communication that might increase "the awareness of the availability of medicinal products". Today's vote in the full parliament is expected to back that amendment, which then has to go through the Council of Ministers and return to the parliament before coming law. Supporters of a tougher ban on advertising fear the introduction of aggressive US-style marketing. The original proposal to liberalise information "would have been letting the genie out of the bottle, bringing a US scenario to Europe", said Catherine Stihler, a British member of the European parliament. Some of the patient groups that distribute information were "mere fronts" for the pharmaceuticals industry, she said. Brought up in countries where the state provides healthcare, many Europeans have always been wary of companies that make a profit from medicine and those doubts have been aggravated by the furore over Aids drugs in Africa. Americans, on the other hand, seem to be more comfortable than Europeans about letting private companies take the lead in promoting scientific innovation - although drugs companies there have long been accused of "disease-mongering" - persuading healthy people that they are really sick. However, the parliament has already been accused of adopting a paternalistic attitude to health information. Egil Bodd, an executive at Merck in Brussels, said: "We talk about censorship. I would go so far as to say we are experiencing dictatorship." Patient groups say the proposed changes show a lack of understanding of their needs. Filippo von Schlýsser, chairman of the European Aids Treatment Group, said: "In a perfect world, the research would be done by universities, but in reality the products are developed by pharmaceutical companies." His group meets Aids researchers every two months to discuss new treatments - meetings he believes could be at risk if the new law goes through because they might be considered advertising. He said: "Aids is a long-term, life-threatening disease which needs constant follow-up and information about treatments. "To get that information we have to go to the source." Patient groups believe European governments want to limit information because they fear it will lead to more public spending on drugs. Few want to see drugs advertised on television, but they believe there is a middle ground that avoids an outright ban on talking to companies. Given that much of the information is already available on US-based websites, they say the new European rules are hiding from reality. In the US, pharmaceutical companies have been allowed to run TV commercials promoting their products since 1997. The result is that the industry is facing even more criticism. Barbara Mintzes, a researcher at the University of British Columbia across the border in Canada, said: "People facing serious illness are far more vulnerable than a person buying a new car." She believes that the advertisements have led to unnecessary drug prescriptions. According to her research into US family doctors, some three-quarters of people who requested a specific drug were prescribed it. In those cases, half of the doctors said they might not have prescribed that product for another patient. She said: "Taking a drug should be a shared informed choice. That is very different from a situation where you receive emotive messages about specific brand-name products." Many psychiatrists believe the rapid growth in the use of anti-depressants is the result of industry marketing rather than the drugs' effectiveness. Dr Joanna Moncrieff, at University College, London, said: "Mental illness has become much more highly medicalised and one very important reason has been pressure from industry." The advertisements can be wrong, too. Between 1997 and 2001, the US Food and Drug Administration issued 94 notices about violations, mostly to do with the benefits of drugs being exaggerated. The companies argue that the advertisements raise awareness of under-diagnosed diseases, such as diabetes, and encourage patients to keep taking long-term treatments. Ironically, while Europe is moving towards restricting
information from companies, the FDA is considering further relaxation
after a number of recent cases found it was violating freedom of speech. |