Quantcast

Hiding behind the First Amendment

WEST VIRGINIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Hiding behind the First Amendment

Our View
Tv remote 1200

StockSnap/Pixabay

For years, attorneys have used scare tactics on broadcast media to solicit clients from patients taking prescribed drugs.

You’ve seen or heard the cheesy spots. “This is an alert!” “Your medicine could be killing you!” “If you’re currently using [Product X], you could be at risk!”

Details supporting the lurid claims? Citations from authorities? Links to nonpartisan sites for more information? Nope, none of that. Just a phone number to secure the services of an altruistic attorney acting in the public interest.


“There were many patients who were unnecessarily worried that the medication their doctors prescribed might be killing them,” Dr. Matthew Mintz commented in a blog post 14 years ago. “Similarly, physicians were worried that a medication they thought they were giving their patients to help them, might have caused harm.” In addition, he noted, “many patients simply stopped taking their diabetes medications, and many of those patients did not tell their doctor about this.”

You might think lawyers running anti-drug commercials should be held accountable  if they cannot substantiate dubious claims – for instance, by being forced to compensate prescription drug users whose health they’ve impaired, as well as companies whose sales they’ve depressed.

Our state legislators thought so, which is why they passed the Prevention of Deceptive Lawsuit Advertising and Solicitation Practices Regarding the Use of Medications Act. Needless to say, it did not have the support of those who made its passage necessary, who instantly reinvented themselves as defenders of the First Amendment.

“Health problems place a premium on assuring that the people receive truthful and accurate information about their conditions, the drugs and medical devices available to treat them, and their legal rights when injured by those treatments so that they can make informed judgments about their care and about their remedies when treatments go wrong,” said Scott Segal, a high-priced attorney challenging the law.

Round One goes to Segal and his platitudinous playmates, now that a federal judge has issued an order prohibiting enforcement of the law, but the fight’s just beginning.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News