Complaints about advertising of medicines are encouraged

Editor—Carvel has given his personal view about advertising by pharmaceutical companies and the code of practice for the pharmaceutical industry of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.¹ The code is administered by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, at arm's length from the association itself. The code is available from the authority, the association's website (www.abpi.org.uk), its medicines compendium, and the eMC website (www.emc.vhn.net).

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority supports Carvel's view that those dissatisfied with pharmaceutical advertising should complain to it. Of the 121 complaints made in 2000, 57 came from members of the health professions and 52 from pharmaceutical companies. Intercompany complaints may be seen by Carvel as “dog eat dog,” but they are an effective control as companies will examine their competitors' promotional material extreme carefully.

Carvel was provided with a detailed response. The relevant companies submitted that the use of the word “urgent” referred to the need for urgent treatment of women at risk of further vertebral fractures. The code of practice panel ruled no breach of the code. The overtly promotional appearance would make it unlikely that recipients would think it had come from an official source. In the panel's view the mailing would not cause offence to most recipients and the promotional nature of the mailing had not been disguised.

With all complaints the unsuccessful party has the right to appeal the panel's decision to the code of practice appeal board, which consists of 19 members including its independent legally qualified chairman, Nicholas Browne. There are six other independent members, three medically qualified, a pharmacist, a member from a body that provides information on medicines, and a member representative of the interests of patients. The other members are from pharmaceutical companies.

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority is disappointed that Carvel considered that he got nowhere by formally complaining, particularly as by not appealing the panel's ruling of no breach he did not complete the available self regulatory procedure. Even now the procedure is not exhausted as the matter could be reconsidered in the event of a further complaint. The outcomes of all cases considered under the code are published. The relevant report was published in the November 2001 Code of Practice Review. Copies are widely circulated and are available from the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority.