.. Ive backed up all my claims..

Can’t say the same for the pharmaceutical industry most of teh time though…

The problem with off-label is that the Big Pharma companies just can’t follow the guidelines. Being driven by unsatisfied greed, they just can’t help themselves. Money, money, money - give me more.

As for DTC, I think the comapnies should just give it up. In the rest of the world, they’re allowed to provide patient education regarding medical disorders. This would be best for the US as well. Then the drug companies would actually be providing a public service - how incredible. DTC campaigns just cause problems for healthcare practitioners - especially physicians and pharmacists. The Big Pharma drug companies should leave the prescribing to the descretion of the doc and let him/her decide waht’s best for the individual patient.

I support free speech by pharma companies (and everyone else)and trust that fair trade and tort laws will take care of misleading communications. Do I believe in unfettered communications–absolutely not! For instance, a person shouldn’t be able to yell fire in a movie theater (unless there really is one). In addition, other communications that represent a clear and present danger, I believe, can, within the bounds of the Constitution, be restricted by law . I don’t believe that DTC represents such a danger. A potential user cannot purchase immediately based on what he or she sees in an ad. They must go through a professional who has the legal and professional obligation to make the ultimate prescribing decision.

As for off-label promotion, I do believe that restrictions limiting this can be acceptable, but that an outright ban is unconstitutional. The WLF challenged this a number of years ago; thus, currently, companies are allowed to communicate on off-label indications, so long as they follow very strict guidelines.

As for old cranky’s comment, I’ll first point out that the courts have determined that minors don’t have the same protections as do adults. I have issues with this, bu accept that certain communications to minors can be banned. As ofr the rest of his arguement, I’d suggest that all other advertising is far more dangerous since there’s nothing to stop a consumer from acting on the desire to purchase harmful products–high fat foods, dangerous toys, etc.

you’re totally missing the fact that Prescription products are not the same as other consumer products:

* A Health Care Provider (HCP) licensed to prescribe medications must make a clinical evaluation & decision to administer treatment; then
* The “consumer” [patient] is provided with a prescription that legally authorizes the patient to obtain the product from another licensed professional. [alternately, the HCP can treat directly the consumer with the product and/or provide samples]

The pharma companies would not be gagged or have their first amendment rights violated by a ban of DTC advertising of prescribed medicines. Companies a routinely banned from directing certain types of advertising to inappropriate audiences who do not have the right to purchase a product of their own volition (i.e., companies are not permitted to target alcohol or cigarette ads to minors & cig ads are not allowed on tv). Since patients can not legally purchase prescription products without a valid prescription from a licensed healthcare professional, a ban on advertising to those who can not prescribe would be legitimate and constitutional.