The triad formed by the pharmaceutical industry, advertising agencies, and communications companies has deployed an intense marketing strategy to increase drug consumption by the population. This reality raises a challenge: in the use of medicines, where does the treatment demand for controlling diseases end and the market pressure to encourage consumption begin? In addition, exploitation of medicines' symbolic value by the mainstream media becomes a powerful tool to induce habits and increase drug consumption. Medicines have been the leading cause of human poisoning in Brazil since 1995 (if one includes suicide attempts, they become the second most common cause, according to Annual Statistics on Cases of Human Intoxication and Poisoning, Sinitox, 1995-2002). All medicines entail potential risk, and the adverse reactions multiply with incorrect and indiscriminate use. The elderly, children, and individuals with chronic diseases form a huge contingent exposed to drug advertising, with no warning as to the use of substances that can be harmful to these groups. In November 2000 the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) published Ruling 102, attempting to place limits on the industry. The current study analyzes 100 drug advertisements published from October 2002 to July 2003, compares their messages with the provisions of the new legislation, and concludes that they all violate one or more articles of the Ruling. Beyond greater surveillance, this study discusses the regulatory model itself, which has failed to reach its own self-defined objectives.
Medicines; health surveillance; advertising ethics; regulation; media