[lit-ideas] Canadian courts weigh drug-advertising changes...

  • From: Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:05:44 -0400

It boils down, I think, to which "right' trumps which. Is it more important to satisfy the media's 'right' to print and air what they want (even if, in this case, their clearly stated motive is profit)? Or is it more important to protect the community's 'right' to keep health care affordable (if in fact, the law against direct to consumer advertising does that)? At bottom it's a philosophical issue.
Court weighs changes to Canada's drug advertising laws
Doctors, broadcasters and pharmaceutical companies are closely watching a court case that could change the way prescription drugs are advertised to the public in Canada.

Currently, TV and magazine ads in Canada can either:

* Mention a drug without making claims about what it does, such as advertising the name of an erectile dysfunction treatment while remaining vague about its purpose.
* Urge consumers to talk to their doctor about treatments for such things as hair loss, without mentioning a specific drug.

CanWest Global Communications, which owns a number of media outlets, claims the current law restricts its freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The rest of the story...

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: