A bad week for drug companies?
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7416.0-g (Published 18 September 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:0-g
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 absolutely agree with Jocalyn Clark. I was shocked to see the
advertisment and concerned that it was in the 27th Sept issue again.
I find the ad threatening and in very poor taste, particularly after
the Washington sniper and the general violent environment we live in. It
would have bothered me just as much whoever was in the sniper's line of
fire, not just because it is a middle aged woman. My issue is against
violence in general and this ad certainly promotes that.
I think that it warrants a complaint to the Advertising Standards
Authority and the Code of Practice Committee.
I also think since the BMJ has an open peer review system and is
committed to being explicit and up front, we should start doing the same
for the drug advertisments that we publish. After all, we are involved in
the process to some extent.
Competing interests:
I am an editor at the BMJ but not involved in drug advertisments in any way
Competing interests: No competing interests
When I opened this week’s BMJ (clinical research edition) it fell
open at the centrefold. Drug ads have hit a new low.
The ad, for the Boehringer Ingelheim manufactured Asasantin Retard,
is of a middle aged woman seen through the field of view of a sniper
rifle. Her brain is targeted, it seems, to reduce the risk of her having
another stroke. Aiming the rifle at her head (a "head shot" to you non
hired-guns) presumably assures the kill. The accompanying headline warns
us to "Take Cover." Asasantin apparently works assassin-like to provide
"powerful protection from secondary stroke."
I find this image deeply misogynistic, violent, and a shocking
departure from normal advertising practice, even of the pharmaceutical
industry whose ads are often said to be sexist, racist, or both (1-4).
And this ad cannot simply be dismissed as a relic of the history of
art in which gender stereotypes are present (5,6). BMJ readers were
unbothered by the use of an updated Delacroix painting of a bare breasted
woman to sell breast cancer drugs
(http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7260/DC1), but I suspect
they will be troubled by this contemporary image of violence toward women.
A complaint to the regulators is warranted.
References
1. Lusk B. Pretty and powerless: nurses in advertisements, 1930-
1950. Res Nurs Health 2000; 23:229-36.
2. Lovdahl U, Riska E. The construction of gender and mental health
in Nordic psychotropic-drug advertising.
Int J Health Serv 2000; 30:387-406
3. Lusk B. Patients’ images in nursing magazine
advertisements. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1999; 21:66-75
4. Lovdahl U, Riska A, Riska E. Gender display in Scandinavian and
American advertising for antidepressants.
Scand J Public Health 1999; 27:306-10.
5. Clark JP. Babes and boobs: Analysis of JAMA cover art. BMJ 1999;
319:1603-5.
6. O’Kelly C. Gender role stereotypes in fine art: a content
analysis of art history books. Qual Soc 1983; 6:136-48.
Competing interests:
I am an editor at BMJ but not involved in the selection or screening of the pharmaceutical adverts that appear in the journal.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Mr Smith
You said, "but the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)
in England and Wales looks for evidence that a treatment is appreciably
better than what is already available before advocating its use in the
NHS, which is most of the market in Britain."
How can you believe this whilst we use synthetic thyroxin, and
patients aren't informed that there is a choice of a natural version if
all does not go well for them? Synthetic thyroxin was never proved to be a
better product. In fact, in America, the FDA declared that it shouldn't
have been introduced as a grandfathered drug in the first place.
If you care to check back I don't think that you will find the
evidence that it has ever been "appreciably better than what is already
available" in Britain either. It may have been believed at one time that
all things synthesised had a more consistent potency. However a belief is
not a scientific proof and it certainly is not proof that it is better
than what is already available. The potency issue is irrelevant anyway as
set standards are applied to both kinds of the medication.
In fact so shoddy has thyroxin research been that it hasn't even
identified that patients need days of the week on the packaging. They
also need different colours for the various strengths, more choice in
strengths and larger tablets for the elderly. Maybe NICE should have made
the manufactures explain the overwhelming rise in the cost of thyroxin, as
it so obviously hasn't gone on research. Isn't demanding explanations for
extortionate price rises in their remit too?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
I keenly read reports on large public health impact issues and
further propose that:
HFA through primary health care, PHC, is the supreme ambitious global
health vision ever formulated. It is a universal social contact by
governments and the people for health as a right. Humanity should keep it
on health and social agenda. As a vision, unlike a goal or objective, it
was very unfortunate that at first it was time-tagged 2000, not
withstanding the need to show progress. Little since has been said about
HFA, leading to unintended ignorance or for some to think it expired. The
naked truth is HFA has no end, because; individuals, families,
communities, countries and regions develop at different pace, not a
justification for disparity. Also, aspects of HFA categorized as demands
and needs, health determinants (biological, physical, socioeconomic,
health system) are dynamic, recycled, ever changing such as new and re-
emerging diseases, demographic and epidemiological transition.
PHC charts the road to HFA through availability, accessibility,
affordability, acceptability, scientific-soundness, basic care elements,
community partnership and integrated social development of health services
(1).
In view of the above, to keep our vision at the forefront, it would
be good all editors to high light and classify developments that have or
are likely to have major impact internationally under among others,
HFA/PHC, in all journals. Those concerned, and UN, should use the
additional database linkage to monitor, report and advise nations on HFA
status. There have been several HFA road signals variously reported in
editorials in recent years: the Australian system of drug assessment for
cost effectiveness and efficacy, and the off springs, the National
Institute for Clinical Excellence, NICE, (England and Wales), the USA
proposed bill HR 2356; concordance in prescribing; the World Trade
Organization’s TRIPS 2003 announcement on access to drugs by poor
countries; all round community response to HIV/AIDS especially in poor
countries and HAART; HFA’s visits to USA capital included the Clinton
unhatched health plan. (2,3,4,5).
No interests declared.
Anthony Lwegaba, Lecturer, SCMR-UWI, QEH, Barbados. Lwegaba@lycos.com
1. Alma-Ata 1978: Primary health care report of the international
conference on primary care, WHO 1978.
2. Richard Smith. A bad week for drug companies? BMJ editorial 2003; 327.
3. Pollock A M, Price D. New deal from World Trade Organization, BMJ 2003;
327: 571-2
4. White C. Doctors fail to grasp concept of concordance. BMJ 2003;
327:642
5. Kennedy E M (Senator). (Editors Choice) Quality, Affordable Health Care
for Americans. American Journal of Public Health 2003; 93:14.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: A bad week for drug ads
I agree with the other respondents that this advert is immediately
and unambiguously offensive. I am also insulted that this advert was
conceived of as appealing to me as a professional involved in health care.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests