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: 8572

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

Hammel RW, Holberg PA.
Ban the use of pharmaceutical trademarks?
Medical Marketing and Media 1976 May; 11:28, 30, 32-37


Abstract:

An anonymous questionnaire was sent to randomly selected samples of 300 pharmacists and 300 physicians practicing in Wisconsin to measure and assess attitudes towards the concept of banning the use of trademarks in the prescription drug industry. Results showed that 44% of the pharmacists and 29% of the physicians responding favored the proposal to prohibit pharmaceutical trademarks. The type of pharmacy practice did not have a significant relationship to pharmacists’ opinion, but a large majority of physicians in private practice, as opposed to those in hospital practice, were against the proposal. Likewise, both pharmacy and medical practitioners with the least amount of practice experience tended to favor the proposal more than did more experienced practitioners. Finally, few pharmacists or physicians thought adopting the proposal would improve the quality of patient care.

 

  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