MEPs kick out ‘drug advert’ proposals

Date: 24/10/02

By Martin Banks and Karen Carstens

CONTROVERSIAL proposals by the European Commission to allow drugs firms to provide information directly to patients have been overwhelmingly rejected by MEPs.

The Commission had suggested that patients with Aids, asthma and diabetes should be allowed to obtain 'disease education' information from drug manufacturers for a trial period of five years.

But MEPs in Strasbourg, who feared it would be the first step towards allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, rejected the proposals by 494 votes to 42 yesterday (23 October).

One member said that if the proposal had gone ahead, it would have resulted in drugs firms employing the techniques of 'used-car salesmen'.

Others feared the introduction of aggressive US-style marketing. Across the Atlantic, drugs companies have been allowed to run TV commercials promoting their products since 1997.

The Commission plans could still be revived as they must now be discussed by the Council of Ministers. If approved, the matter would then have to go to conciliation.

The Commission first launched its plan for a modest liberalisation of the rules last year. Erkki Liikanen, commissioner for enterprise and the information society, attempted to allay MEPs' fears, describing the proposals as 'balanced and prudent'.

He pointed out that a lot of 'fragmented information' about drugs was already available on the web and argued it was in patients' interests to make that information more widely available.

However, Socialist MEP Catherine Stihler warned that his proposal 'would have been letting the genie out of the bottle, bringing a US scenario to Europe'. Some patient groups that distribute information were 'mere fronts' for the pharmaceuticals industry, she claimed.

Reaction to the decision was mixed, with French centre-right member Francoise Grossetête, who had campaigned strongly against the plan, welcoming the vote. She maintained that the drugs industry was incapable of providing impartial information.

Liberal member Chris Davies said: 'Patients are better informed than ever before about medicines and we all want people to have easy access to objective information. That is quite different to opening the door to direct consumer advertising in which drugs firms employ the marketing techniques of used-car salesmen.'

Jim Murray, director of European consumers' organisation BEUC, also welcomed the decision, saying: 'While consumers do need more and better information on medicines, the pharmaceutical industry must not be allowed to directly provide 'information' to patients. We fear this type of information would only increase awareness of brands, but not help increase disease or treatment awareness.'

Filippo von Schlosser, chairman of the European Aids Treatment Group, said the proposed changes showed a lack of understanding of patients' needs.

But industry figures accused MEPs 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.'

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, which had called for the current restrictions to be lifted, said the proposals would have allowed companies to provide information to patients who wanted it. 'This had nothing to do with advertising drugs on TV or radio,' said a spokesman.

Liikanen did achieve one notable breakthrough, however.

His spokesman said he was 'particularly pleased' that the Parliament accepted the Commission's plan to harmonise a central authorisation procedure for new medicines.

Controversial proposals by the European Commission to allow drugs firms to provide information directly to patients were overwhelmingly rejected by MEPs on 23 October 2002.