By Jay Gutteridge
“Good morning, good morning.” Many Canadians have seen the energetic ad for Viagra — a pill used to treat erectile dysfunction — that includes this catchy tune and shows a man dancing in the streets.
What many Canadians may not know, however, are the possible side effects of the drug, what alternatives exist, or even what the drug can really do.
But under Canada’s Food and Drug Act, prescription medication ads are not permitted to state what the product does. Conversely, ads that discuss specific diseases can’t divulge the products that may be used for treatment.
While these rules exist in Canada, American companies are free to mention the names of prescription medications and their uses. Canadians who watch U.S. television channels or read American magazines will see these ads.
With so many American media infiltrating Canada, Canadian lobby groups are trying to convince the Canadian government to make new rules regarding direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication.
“What we’re looking for is the made-in-Canada solution that will provide us with access to information about specific products,” says Sandra Graham of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB).
The CAB, along with the Canadian Newspaper Association, the Institute of Communications and Advertising and Magazines Canada, comprise the Alliance for Access to Medical Information, a lobby group dedicated to getting the restrictions on prescription drug advertising changed.
Graham says the CAB does not wish to adopt the American system completely. She says Canadian ads should include more information such as the pros and cons of a product and who should or shouldn’t take it.
“The more dialogue you have with your physician, the better informed you are, the more you can actually choose how you want to deal with your health care,” Graham says.
While ads for prescription drugs can inspire a person to seek help, they could also falsely convince someone that they need a certain product.
Canadian Medical Association (CMA) president Dr. Dana Hanson says his organization supports patient-doctor dialogue, but has problems with ads for prescription drugs.
He says safety concerns arise when the public begins to self-diagnose, and consumers should inform themselves about prescription medication through physicians, pharmacists and reputable Web sites.
“Direct-to-consumer information is one thing, direct-to-consumer advertising is quite another,” he says.
In September 2002, the CMA Board of Directors approved a policy in opposition to direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication. The policy document states that such ads would undermine doctors’ authority to treat ailments and would increase health care costs due to higher demand for prescription products.
Health Canada is still in the process of deciding what to do about the situation.
“We are neither leaning one way or the other at this point,” says Ryan Baker, a Health Canada representative. “We are simply gathering information. We want to learn more about the impact this sort of advertising can have.”
Graham argues direct-to-consumer advertising has had some positive effects in America.
“A lot of men are going in (to see a doctor) who think that they need Viagra but actually what they have is a serious prostate problem. (Advertising is) getting people off the couch and into the doctor’s office,” she says.
While this may be true, people could be visiting the doctor’s office for the wrong reasons. If a doctor says patients doesn’t need a specific medication, they could seek more opinions, until they gets what they want.
At the same time, a Canadian who sees one of the vague advertisements on television that say nothing of what the product does may demand the medication from a doctor because the actors in the ad seemed happy. This is even more dangerous because the person does not even know what the drug is for.
A compromise between the Canadian and American systems needs to be found. People need to know more than just the side effects of a medication, and they certainly need to know what the drug does.
The Canadian government needs to enact legislation stating that drug ads must be run with disclaimers attached. These mandatory disclaimers could list not only the side effects of a medication, but could stress that alternatives are available and that a doctor’s opinion is more valid than the claims in the ad. These disclaimers would have to be situated in a clear and prominent position in the ad.
This way, the media would receive valuable ad revenue, doctors’ authority would not be undermined and patients would get the medical care they need.
The day this happens would truly be a “good morning.”