Oy, librarians! No doubt you’ve already heard. But in case you haven’t, the push for direct-to-consumer advertising in Canada is marching on. However, if you like acronyms, it’s DTCA.
CanWest Global Communications Corporation stands to increase its profits should a lawsuit they are waging in the name of ‘freedom of expression’ succeed. While the public health system is strained under the weight of increasing costs that are largely the result of pharmaceutical expenses, CanWest seems to be thinking to themselves … why should Pfizer get all the cash? How can we get a piece of this action?
I say “they” because a corporation such as CanWest Global is not an individual. It is a group of individuals. If you’ve seen The Corporation, you will know the importance of this distinction. Despite this, under the law corporations are viewed as having the same rights as individuals. This lawsuit is claiming that CanWest Global’s right to freedom of expression is being violated. Does a corporation have this ‘right’? Meaning, do they have the ‘right’ to ‘freely express’ an advertisement on behalf of another multi-million dollor corporation, especially when they stand to profit from airing that ad? What about a corporation’s moral responsibility to society? Or the responsibility of the people who run that corporation?
Still reading? Back to direct-to-consumer advertising. The basic skinny is that it is legal in the US and New Zealand, Canada not so much. It gets muddy. Canadians have been exposed to drug ads through the American media, and in Canada ads for over the counter medications are permitted, as are ads that don’t recommend a drug for a specific condition. Americans and New Zealanders are exposed to the “feeling X? ask your doctor and buy Y” kind of marketing. According to the Toronto Star, US spending increased 10x over the course of 11 years, from 1994 -2005. Open Medicine, the British Medical Journal, Toronto Star, a recent CBC podcast, the Canadian Pharmacists Association and the CMAJ all have good information describing how direct-to-consumer advertising impacts health spending. No one seems to be a fan.
Direct-to-consumer advertising is not ‘free speech’. Advertising messages are carefully constructed bids to pitch products. They are created by talented, creative and well-compensated advertising teams. Legalizing direct-to-consumer advertising would permit profit-seeking corporations to compete with public health interests and public (as in your tax) dollars. As librarians, we can inform/remind the public that for safe and effective medical and health information, ads are not credible sources given that they are rife with branding strategies and backed by well-funded market research. Even if some ads are deemed ‘legal’ and hit the airwaves, they are in fact not ‘health information’. Unfortunately, the research suggests their impact is still huge.
Your Media notes that it is not safe to assume that it will be easy to prove that CanWest Global does not have a case. So you may be thinking, what can a librarian do in a situation such as this. Let’s consider some options …
First, whether you are a health librarian, academic librarian, public librarian, or special librarian - make your patrons aware of this issue:
a) CanWest Global is attempting to encroach on the public’s rights and they/we have a right to be informed about it
b) from an media/information literacy standpoint, DTCA exemplifies what NOT to use for informative purposes.
c) Tell your patrons about this film: Big Bucks, Big Pharma
(’c’ added June 10.07)
While I’m all for seeking alternative sources to health information, DTCA stinks. Freedom of expression being the wonderful thing that it is, you can exercise yours by talking to your Member of Parliament, sending a dirty note to the CRTC, and ccing whatever you do to the CanWest Global turkeys.
Oy, that was long. Thanks for hanging in there.
-PC-