Don’t raise unfounded hopes
Material for the public should not (either directly or indirectly) raise unfounded hopes of successful treatment (or mislead with respect to safety).
Consider this example
In the UK Bayer placed an advert in ‘The Economist’ (a weekly newspaper). It was headed ‘Fighting Multiple Sclerosis’ followed by the Bayer corporate logo which included the phrase ‘Science For A Better Life’, followed by ‘Providing Hope’.
The advertisement stated that in the fight against multiple sclerosis Bayer had brought to market the first therapy with long-term efficacy in significantly reducing the frequency of periods of exacerbation. It also stated that the company was continuing to investigate new therapies to give patients the most precious gift possible: a life full of hope for the future. Bayer marketed the product Betaferon in the UK.
Bayer stated that ‘The Economist’ was targeted at individuals with an interest in finance and politics, not the general public per se. The advertisement was to show Bayer as an ethical company committed to scientific research and the provision of high quality healthcare.
Which of the following do you agree with?
- This is a corporate advertisement and is therefore acceptable
- This raises unfounded hopes about treatment for MS
- As this newspaper is for those interested in finance and politics, this advert is acceptable
- This advert effectively advertises Betaferon to the public
- This cannot be advertising to the public as no product is specifically named
Ruling
The Panel did not accept that this was just ‘corporate advertising’ as a specific therapy area was mentioned. They stated that the advert also referred to Bayer Schering’s treatment for MS (although not specifically named) and included clinical claims for the product.
Furthermore the advertisement also hinted that something else would become available and this would give patients ‘a life full of hope for the future’. The Panel felt that this raised unfounded hopes of successful treatment given that MS was an incurable disease.
Bayer were found to have breached the regulations by advertising to the general public and raising unfounded hopes of successful treatment.
