Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1535450
 
 

Footnotes (209)



 


 



Drug Safety and Commercial Speech: Television Advertisements and Reprints on Off-Label Uses


Margaret Gilhooley


Seton Hall University - School of Law

March 3, 2010

San Diego Law Review, Vol. 47, 2010
Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 1535450

Abstract:     
This paper examines how the constitutional protections for commercial speech have limited the ability of Congress and FDA to regulate prescription drugs in ways that can affect safety. In Thompson v. Western States, the Supreme Court struck down a Congressional restriction on advertisements for unapproved "compound" drugs because a disclosure that FDA had not approved the compound was considered a constitutionally adequate alternative. While drug compounds are a relatively obscure category, the decision influenced Congress in deciding not to require a moratorium on television advertisements for newly approved drugs until the risks were better known.

The paper also provides an overview of the intense dispute about the legal and constitutional protections for manufacturers who distribute reprints to doctors of studies they fund about off-label uses of a drug with a disclosure about the lack of agency approval. At the end of the Bush Administration, FDA issued a Guidance Document that the agency did not intend to consider the non-promotional distribution of reprints about an off-label use by a company with disclosures about the lack of FDA approval as establishing an "intent" that the product be used for an unapproved use. While the agency position is ambiguous on whether it rests on statutory or constitutional grounds, or is an enforcement policy, if the new Administration were to revoke the Guidance, a constitutional challenge could ensue. That litigation could also test the difference between commercial speech and expressive speech that receives the highest First Amendment protections.

Justice Breyer, in his dissent in Western States, maintained that a "more lenient application" of the Constitution is needed and warned against "an overly rigid commercial speech doctrine" for Governmental decisions that affect "health and safety." Transforming these decisions into a constitutional decision "would involve a tragic constitutional misunderstanding" as shown by history with respect to the Due Process clause. Instead, for drugs and products that affect health, the test needs to be a "flexible" one that examines the restrictions "proportionality, the relation between restriction and objective, the fit between ends and means." This paper explores how a safety-aware proportionality test would apply to the areas where the commercial speech doctrine has limited FDA's ability to restrict drug promotion.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 38

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: January 15, 2010 ; Last revised: June 2, 2013

Suggested Citation

Gilhooley, Margaret, Drug Safety and Commercial Speech: Television Advertisements and Reprints on Off-Label Uses (March 3, 2010). San Diego Law Review, Vol. 47, 2010; Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 1535450. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1535450

Contact Information

Margaret Gilhooley (Contact Author)
Seton Hall University - School of Law ( email )
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102-5210
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 475
Downloads: 72
Download Rank: 165,859
Footnotes:  209

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.281 seconds