Healthy Skepticism Library item: 6987

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: news

Cresswell A.
Doctors divided on starring role in drug campaigns
The Australian 2006 Dec 11

Abstract:

A RECENT spate of high-profile medicos spruiking over-the-counter drugs
and other products on TV has sparked divisions among doctors amid claims
the practice is ethically dubious and risks undermining the public’s
trust in the profession.

The networks have screened an increasing number of advertisements
featuring GPs since a ban on product endorsements by doctors and
pharmacists was scrapped last year.

Products endorsed range from the popular painkillers Nurofen and
Children’s Panadol, to lesser-known alternative therapies such as a
Chinese herbal treatment for urinary tract infections and weight-loss
pills made from “potent botanical extracts that help support vitality
and performance”.

Well-known doctors who have appeared in some of these advertisements
include former Australian Medical Association president Kerryn Phelps
and Sydney GP Penny Adams. Both have defended their involvement.

Many doctors have had concerns, but the controversy is set to intensify
with the publication today of a letter in the Medical Journal of
Australia that questions the ethics of doctors who sell products on TV.

The letter, written by Adrian Pokorny, a third-year medical student at
the University of Newcastle, says the ethics of TV endorsements are
“potentially questionable” and the medicos involved are “playing on the
esteem and regard in which doctors are still held”.

At least some ethics experts agree there is a problem. Breast cancer
surgeon Charles Douglas, who is also Mr Pokorny’s lecturer in clinical
ethics and health law, said the issue was “extraordinarily hard to
define” but that doctors who appeared in TV ads were “working as salesmen”.

“While there’s no reason why they can’t do that, it does affect the way
that the public views the medical profession, when its members are
working to make money rather than primarily to care for patients,” he said.

The AMA changed its non-binding code of ethics last month to make clear
its opposition to doctors appearing in TV ads.

The move was prompted by the change in August last year to the binding
Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, which dropped the ban on
endorsements by health professionals as part of moves to harmonise
regulations between Australia and New Zealand. Under the new regime, the
doctor’s opinion must be genuine, and their name and any payment they
receive must be acknowledged in the ad.

However, Dr Phelps and Dr Adams rejected the criticisms, saying the
practice was “completely legal” and they only endorsed products they
believed in. “Do you want your endorsements to come from a sports star,
or a professional who has some experience in the field?” Dr Phelps said.

“I’m not saying it should be carte blanche. I am saying appropriate
guidelines are important, and the doctor’s own conscience should guide them.

“The important thing is that the doctors have some clinical experience
with what they are endorsing, and they are satisfied with its safety and
efficacy.”