PR woman must pay fine for drug advertising
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the communications manager of a pharmaceutical company must pay a fine of 7,500 francs for violating the ban on public advertising of prescription drugs. She had sent articles about a medication for atopic dermatitis to magazines and newspapers.
The communications manager of a pharmaceutical company has been fined CHF 7,500 by the Federal Supreme Court for violating the ban on advertising prescription-only medicines to the general public. In spring 2003, the communications specialist had sent PR articles about a prescription-only preparation for neurodermatitis to magazines and newspapers for publication. In the editorial articles, which appeared in three daily newspapers and a health magazine, the brand name of the drug was explicitly mentioned. The ointment was described as the "new star in the atopic dermatitis firmament" and the drug's active ingredient was touted as "the new cortisone-free wonder weapon against atopic dermatitis". The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic then filed a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company. The Federal Supreme Court has now upheld the verdict of the Zurich High Court, which found the woman guilty of possibly intentional misconduct.
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the texts sent out by the communications specialist using the terms "new hope", "ground-breaking effect" and "ray of hope for patients" were "clearly subjective and likely to create incentives for readers to buy the product". In addition, various side effects were concealed.
According to the Therapeutic Products Act, advertising to the general public for medicines that may only be dispensed on a doctor's prescription is not permitted. It is punishable both in cases of intent and negligence. The ban is justified with the argument that patients can influence their doctor to such an extent that he no longer makes decisions based on his specialist knowledge. He should not be exposed to any pressure from his patients to prescribe the advertised preparation as a result of advertising to the public.
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the texts sent out by the communications specialist using the terms "new hope", "ground-breaking effect" and "ray of hope for patients" were "clearly subjective and likely to create incentives for readers to buy the product". In addition, various side effects were concealed.
According to the Therapeutic Products Act, advertising to the general public for medicines that may only be dispensed on a doctor's prescription is not permitted. It is punishable both in cases of intent and negligence. The ban is justified with the argument that patients can influence their doctor to such an extent that he no longer makes decisions based on his specialist knowledge. He should not be exposed to any pressure from his patients to prescribe the advertised preparation as a result of advertising to the public.
