Advertising by pharmaceutical companies in eBMJ
BMJ 1999; 318 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7183.598 (Published 27 February 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;318:598
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I agree with the editorial by Dr Richard Smith In my opinion the
value of informing physicians is much, much greater than the greatly
exaggerated "danger" from such ads.
Competing interests: No competing interests
EDITOR - Sheila McKechnie's letter raises a very interesting point
about the accessibility to patient information, but whilst she called for
a debate, she sadly did not offer any solutions as to how we might
proceed.
Surely, as you rightly point out the issue must be primarily about
consumer choice but also with this comes the responsible provision of high
quality, balanced and factual information to create a true partnership
between patients and prescribers.
Whilst the regulatory authorities can control the activities of
pharmaceutical companies in their territory, how can they prevent the
public from accessing healthcare web sites overseas? Are we seeing the old
geographical boundaries disappearing forever and do we need a common set
of international standards to protect consumers and alert
them to the fact that the quality of information can be inconsistent?
Should we be calling on the pharmaceutical companies themselves,
with the breadth of their geographical reach to establish themselves
responsibly as the patients' champions and provide consumers with better
health education (not promotion) about diseases? There is potentially a
"win win" for everyone as better education should lead to improved drug
adherence, which could cut down unnecessary GP visits
and hospitalisations, therefore reducing the burden on the public purse.
If this increases the drugs bill, but is proved to be the most cost
effective form of treatment when all of the costs are brought together, is
this not right for us both as consumers and taxpayers?
Martin Leuw
Managing Director
Access 24 Limited
Reigate
Surrey RH2 7RP
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sheila McKechnie is obviously unaware of the problems of accessing
quality medical information in Third World countires. The Zimbabwe dollar
has devalued by over 60% in the last six months and is predicted to
decline further. This means that the cost of journals has more than
doubled. Medical Libraries are uanble to afford subscriptions and are
relying on donated journals, individuals are also affected, I have had to
give up two personal subscriptions this year and neither journal is
supplied by the hospital library. The internet and electronic journals is
the only cost effective way of keeping up to date. If advertising keeps
the eBMJ free it is a price that those working in the First World need to
come to terms with.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Please also ensure that the usual guidelines applicable to print versions for acceptance of advertisements will also apply to the acceptance of these for the on-line version.
Besides, we all know that when patients set their minds to it they will always find information on medicines they take or are are interested in.
It is preferable that they find such information in a well-vetted online journal than in lay media, control over the technical contents of which is not ideal at the best of times.This of course makes it all the more imperative to accept only those advertisemnts that adhere to specified guidelines.
Please keep up eBMJ and accept the bare minimum of advertisements as a reality of Life.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
I strongly support your plans to accept advertisements in exchange for
free access to the eBMJ. I have experienced the marketing bombardment of
the pharmaceutical industry for long enough to know that it can not be
avoided. And if these advertisements may serve a more usefull purpose than
lining the pockets of the advertisers, so much the better.
In our daily practice we are regularly confronted, most of the time
unsollicited, with advertisement in several disguises.
So why would we not be able to "switch off" our peripheral vision in the
eBMJ?
Please keep the access free to the benefit of the medical world.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I truly appreciate having access to the BMJ free on the internet, and
believe it is truly useful in expanding horizons beyond the journals to
which I have traditionally subscribed. There is so much advertising on the
internet, in virtually all websites and home pages, that most of us have
learned to tune it out anyway. I would gladly choose to take advertising
and keep the website free.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Support for Sheila McKechnie
Dear Dr Smith
We wish to write in support of Sheila McKechnie. She makes a point about
advertising medications to the public and not about the provision of free
eBMJ. Your offer of the alternatives of a free eBMJ versus subscriptions
for an advertising-free eBMJ is too restrictive. An additional choice
would be to limit access to eBMJ to registered users. Registered users
would be able to use the site free of charge. Those who are medically
qualified would be able to download the adverts and those who are not,
would not. The one-off registration process could be free or for a small
charge.
You also justify advertising to the public by stating that your mother
reads a copy of the BMJ in Bath Library. There is an advertising-free
version of the paper that is sent to medical students. Why not have this
as the default public access issue (BMJ-Lite)?
Orest Mulka and Pawan Randev
Competing interests : we are dispensing GPs and so could benefit if
prescribing increased as result of advertising to the public. We are also
subject to a prescribing incentive scheme which would have the opposite
effect.
Competing interests: No competing interests