corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 4504

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Whither WHO’s ethical criteria?
Health Horizons 1992 Oct; (17):26


Abstract:

Few countries have adopted the WHO Ethical Criteria. Developed countries have a long history of industry self-regulation and don’t need the Criteria. Developing countries have other priorities and have no use for them at this point in time. Many developing countries do not have the resources to adequately regulate drug promotion and because of this lack of resources it more important for them to deal with other problems than to pass judgement on the Ethical Criteria or on the proper nature of product information and advertising. Self-regulation by the pharmaceutical industry is working and has been welcomed by a wide variety of people including industry critics.

Keywords:
*analysis/developing countries/regulation of promotion/WHO/ Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion/ World Health Organization/industry perspective/ATTITUDES REGARDING PROMOTION: INDUSTRY/PROMOTION AND HEALTH NEEDS: PROMOTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES/REGULATION, CODES, GUIDELINES: INTERNATIONAL CODES

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963