Drug advertising ban `patronising'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE BAN on advertising prescription drugs to the public is patronising, unhelpful and interferes with patients' abilities to look after their own health, a report says today.
In the US more than $1bn a year is spent on pharmaceutical advertising to the public, yet in Britain prescription drugs may only be advertised to doctors. Fears that advertising would mislead the public, increase demands on doctors to prescribe and put pressure on health service budgets are behind the ban, which is Europe-wide. But the report by the Institute of Economic Affairs says these reasons are outdated and patients increasingly want information on which they can make their own decisions.
David Green, the director of the institute, says the real reason for the advertising ban is to curb drug spending and "restrict access to information in the hope that badly informed patients would more willingly accept their lot".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments