scholarly journals La publicidad directa al público de los medicamentos con receta: el justo equilibrio entre los beneficios y los riesgos

2017 ◽  
pp. 269-307
Author(s):  
M. Asunción TORRES LÓPEZ
Keyword(s):  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Rational Drug ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Direct To Consumer Advertising

LABURPENA: Ikerketa honetan, jendarteari sendagaien gaineko zuzeneko publizitateaegiteak dituen arriskuen eta onuren inguruan eztabaidatu nahi da; bereziki, medikuaren agindua behar duten edo errezeta behar duten medikamentuei dagokienez. Europar Batasunak ezarri duen esparru juridikoa medikamentuen zentzuzko erabilera lortzeari begirakoa da. Horretarako, hainbat neurri hartu dira; hala nola, errezeta behar duten medikamentuen gaineko publizitatea egiteko erabateko debekua edo errezetarik behar ez duten medikamentuen gaineko publizitate-jarduerari zenbait baldintza eskatzea. Egun, bi herrialdek bakarrik baimentzen dute beren zuzenbidean publizitate mota hori egitea: Estatu Batuek eta Zeelanda Berriak. Artikulu honetan, Estatu Batuetako eredu juridikoaren berri emango dugu, bai eta publizitate-jarduera horren arriskuei eta onurei buruzko doktrina-eztabaidaren eta botere publikoek horren gainean duten kezkaren berri eman ere. Artikulu honetan, bi kontu jartzen dira mahai gainean: babesa merezi duten bi ondasun juridikoren arteko gatazka eta zein den edo izan behar den horien babes-maila. Batetik, publizitatea egiteko eskubidea eta eskubide hori adierazpen-askatasunerako oinarrizko eskubidetzat edo enpresa-askatasunerako eskubidetzat hartzea dago, eta, bestetik, osasun-eskubide izendatutakoaren babesa dago, edota norainokoa den estatuaren erantzukizuna sendagaien zentzuzko erabileran justifikatuta jarduera pribatuan esku hartzeari dagokionez. Gainera, publizitatearen erabiltzaileek informazioa edukitzeko duten eskubidearen funtsezko balorazioa aipatzen da, bai eta jarduera horrek iragartzen den medikamentuaren onuren eta arriskuen arteko bidezko oreka izan dezala eskatzeari buruzko balorazioa ere. RESUMEN: En este estudio se pretende discutir sobre los riesgos y beneficios de hacer una publicidad directa al público de los medicamentos, en especial de los medicamentos que requieren una prescripción médica o medicamentos con receta. El marco jurídico establecido desde la Unión Europea, gira en torno a la consecución de un uso racional de los medicamentos, para lo que se adoptan una serie de medidas como la prohibición absoluta de realizar publicidad de los medicamentos con receta, así como exigir ciertas condiciones a la actividad publicitaria cuyo objeto sea un medicamento sin receta. En la actualidad solo dos países permiten en su Derecho realizar esta publicidad, los Estados Unidos de América y Nueva Zelanda; damos cuenta en esta artículo del modelo jurídico estadounidense, así como del debate doctrinal y la preocupación del poder público sobre los riesgos y beneficios de esta actividad publicitaria. En este artículo se pone sobre la mesa de debate el conflicto entre dos bienes jurídicos dignos de protección, y cuál es o debe ser su nivel de protección: por una parte, el derecho a realizar publicidad y su consideración como derecho fundamental a la libertad de expresión o bien como derecho a la libertad de empresa; por otra parte, la protección del denominado derecho a la salud; y hasta dónde alcanza la responsabilidad del Estado en cuanto a su intervención en la actividad privada con la justificación en el uso racional de los medicamentos. Además, se hace referencia a la valoración sustancial del derecho a la información del usuario de la publicidad y la exigencia de que esta actividad presente un justo equilibrio entre los beneficios y riesgos del medicamento que publicita. ABSTRACT: This study aims to discuss the risks and benefits of direct-toconsumer advertising of drugs and prescription drugs. The general objetive of the regulation in the European Union is to protect the rational use of drugs , and impose on Member States a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Also, when the object of publicity is others drugs, this european regulation stablishs some conditions. Currently, only in USA and New Zealand direct-to consumer advertising of prescription drugs is allowed; we explain the American System, and expose the public debat in this subject. This article presents the conflict between two constitutional right that deserve protection: on the one hand, the right to freedom of expression, also the right to freedom of enterprise or commercial freedom; on the other hand, the so-called right to health; and what is the responsability of the State regarding its intervention in the private sector justified in rational drug use. The article also refers to the right to information and the need for advertising to show a fair balance between the benefits and risks of the advertising drug.

scholarly journals Controversial advertising of medicines. A comparison between Poland and the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 67-79
Author(s):  
Marta Makowska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Law And Ethics ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Law ◽  
Direct To Consumer Advertising

For many years, the subject of aggressive marketing campaigns conducted by pharmaceutical companies has been raised in Poland. Drug ads are everywhere, on television, the radio, magazines and on the Internet. Therefore, it is extremely important is to ensure both their legal and ethical dimension. This article will present the differences between direct-to-consumer advertising of medicines in Poland and in the US. The dissimilarities result mainly from differences in legislation. In Poland, the law is much stricter than in the US. For example, in the United States companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs directly to patients. In the whole of the European Union, and thus in Poland, it is strictly prohibited. The article will also present other regulations existing in Poland and in the United States and it will compare them. It will offer examples of violations of the law and ethics in the advertising of medicine in both countries. Lastly, it will briefly outline the negative consequences of unacceptable pharmaceutical marketing.

scholarly journals DEFAMATION IN THE FIELD OF HEALTH CARE: COLLEGIALITY OF DOCTORS VS. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF DOCTORS' ACTIVITIES

Medicne pravo ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 80-85
Author(s):  
K. Y. Tereshko
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

The concept of defamation and the composition of defamation tort are analyzed. Foreign experience and judicial practice of defamation application are given. The need to uphold the principle of ensuring a balance between the constitutional right to freedom of thought and speech, the right to free expression of one’s views and beliefs, on the one hand, and the right to respect for human dignity, constitutional guarantees of non-interference in private and family life, judicial protection of the right to rebuttal inaccurate personal information, on the other. The defamation balance between medical collegiality and critical assessment of doctors' activity is formulated. A «defamatory balance» has been formed between the collegiality of doctors and the critical evaluation of doctors' activities, which will be achieved by the preemptive right to freedom of expression to protect the lives and health of patients, actions in the public interest in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Freedom of Expression versus Privacy and the Right to Reputation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Voorhoof
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Investigative Journalism ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The One ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The normative perspective of this chapter is how to guarantee respect for the fundamental values of freedom of expression and journalistic reporting on matters of public interest in cases where a (public) person claims protection of his or her right to reputation. First it explains why there is an increasing number and expanding potential of conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and media freedom (Article 10 ECHR), on the one hand, and the right of privacy and the right to protection of reputation (Article 8 ECHR), on the other. In addressing and analysing the European Court’s balancing approach in this domain, the characteristics and the impact of the seminal 2012 Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 1) are identified and explained. On the basis of the analysis of the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence in defamation cases it evaluates whether this case law preserves the public watchdog-function of media, investigative journalism and NGOs reporting on matters of public interest, but tarnishing the reputation of public figures.

scholarly journals Academic Freedom and Its Protection in the Law of European States

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-345
Author(s):  
Klaus D. Beiter ◽  
Terence Karran ◽  
Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

Focusing on those countries that are members of the European Union, it may be noted that these countries are bound under international human rights agreements, such as the International Covenants on Civil and Political, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights, to safeguard academic freedom under provisions providing for the right to freedom of expression, the right to education, and respect for ‘the freedom indispensable for scientific research.’ unesco’s Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, a ‘soft-law’ document of 1997, concretises international human rights requirements to be complied with to make the protection of the right to academic freedom effective. Relying on a set of human rights indicators, the present article assesses the extent to which the constitutions, laws on higher education, and other relevant legislation of eu states implement the Recommendation’s criteria. The situation of academic freedom in practice will not be assessed here. The results for the various countries have been quantified and countries ranked in accordance with ‘their performance.’ The assessment demonstrates that, overall, the state of the protection of the right to academic freedom in the law of European states is one of ‘ill-health.’ Institutional autonomy is being misconstrued as exhausting the concept of academic freedom, self-governance in higher education institutions sacrificed for ‘executive-style’ management, and employment security abrogated to cater for ‘changing employment needs’ in higher education.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document