Docket Management
Docket: 02N-0209 - Request for Comment on First Amendment Issues
Comment Number: EC -70

Accepted - Volume 1

Comment Record
Commentor Mr. Paskell Poindexter Date/Time 2002-05-29 22:23:13
Organization Mr. Paskell Poindexter
Category Individual

Comments for FDA General
1. Are there arguments for regulating speech about drugs more comprehensively than, for example, about dietary supplements? What must an administrative record contain to sustain such a position? In particular, could FDA sustain a position that certain promotional speech about drugs is inherently misleading, unless it complies with FDA requirements? Does anything turn on whether the speech is made to learned intermediaries or to consumers? What is the evidentiary basis of such a distinction? If the statement is truthful you should not stop it Free speech that is why I served 21 years in the army
2. Is FDA's current position regarding direct-to-consumer and other advertisements consistent with empirical research on the effects of those advertisements, as well as with relevant legal authority? What are the positive and negative effects, if any, of industry's promotion of prescription drugs, biologics, and/or devices? Does the current regulatory approach and its implementation by industry lead to over-prescription of drugs? Do they increase physician visits or patient compliance with medication regimes? Do they cause patient visits that lead to treatment for under-diagnosed diseases? Does FDA's current approach and its implementation by industry lead to adequate treatment for under-diagnosed diseases? Do they lead to adequate patient understanding of the potential risks associated with use of drugs? Does FDA's current approach and its implementation by industry create any impediments to the ability of doctors to give optimal medical advice or prescribe optimal treatment? The FDA's current position regarding direct to consumer ads hurts many people by their being over prescribed in medication that is harmful and not needed
3. May FDA distinguish claims concerning conventional foods from those relating to dietary supplements, taking into account limits on claims that can be made about foods in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, 21 U.S.C. 301, 321, 337, 343, 371? What must an administrative record contain to sustain or deny claims on food labels? How can information best be presented in a succinct but non-misleading fashion? To what extent do assertions in claims need qualifications or disclaimers added to the label to avoid any misconceptions that consumers may draw? Is there a basis to believe that consumers approach claims about conventional foods and dietary supplements differently? I beleave you should not regulate food supplments allowing more information is better a more informed public can make better choices is it food or is it drugs they are both good in their place
4. Should disclaimers be required to be in the same (or smaller or larger) size of type and given equal prominence with claims? Is there any relevant authority or social science research on this issue? there should be no requirment for disclaimers if the correct information is allowed out there you would have no need for disclaimers the american people ar smart enough to know the truth when they see it
5. How can warnings be made most effective in preventing harm while minimizing the chances of consumer confusion or inattention? Is there any evidence as to which types of warnings consumers follow or disregard? warnings should be truthful such as telling you that some Pricription drugs as well as some vitamins have bad side effects the bad side should be up front not hidden
6. What arguments or social science evidence, if any, can be used to support distinguishing between claims made in advertisements and those made on labels? Does the First Amendment and the relevant social science evidence afford the Government greater latitude over labels? the gov should make sure the labels are trutful and also all ad's natural and man made and Pricription drugs should show both sides the good and the bad and the ugly
7. Would permitting speech by manufacturer, distributor, and marketer about off-label uses undermine the act's requirement that new uses must be approved by the FDA? If so, how? If not, why not? What is the extent of FDA's ability to regulate speech concerning off-label uses? if somethinmg works off label better than something else go for it the proof of it working already exist with out FDA approval
8. Do FDA's speech-related regulations advance the public health concerns they are designed to address? Are there other alternative approaches that FDA could pursue to accomplish those objectives with fewer restrictions on speech? yes let the doctors right to keep his oath first do no harm be paramount and educated to serve his client's not special interest
9. Are there any regulations, guidance, policies, and practices FDA should change, in light of governing First Amendment authority? yes less government interferance is always best

EC -70