Section 14

The Consumers’ Institute has decided to celebrate World Consumer Rights Day by calling for consumers’ rights to be curtailed, specifically the right to be informed about pharmaceuticals via television advertising.

Consumers International, the organisation behind the campaign internationally, has a page dedicated to explaining why direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising is unethical. That page has a single heading: “Fuelled by profit”. Shocking stuff.

In the culmination of several seconds of research, Consumer research writer Belinda Allan determines, “DTCA’s primary objective, no matter what gloss is placed on the information, is to sell more product.” Another shocking revelation.

The comment above about calling for consumers’ rights to be curtailed is tongue in cheek - there is no such right. You can’t force a TV station show you these advertisements. There is a genuine right that is being curtailed here though and that is the right of drug manufacturers to speak about their products.

These products have been approved by MedSafe and are governed by the Medicines Act, advertising claims are governed by the Fair Trading Act, these drugs are legal to buy (on prescription), it’s legal to ask your doctor for them, it’s legal for your doctor to tell you about them. It is preposterous to say that it should be illegal for the manufacturer to tell people they exist and what they’re used for.

Setting aside the outrageous attempt to gag pharamceuticals companies, what is the practical benefit of a ban? The only thing these advertisements can do is encourage people to ask their doctor for a particular drug, a perfectly legal activity. And if the doctor doesn’t think that a drug is suitable for any given patient that’s the end of it - no prescription, no sale.

Perhaps these “consumers’ rights” groups should take off their anti-corporate blinkers for a moment, stop trying to squash people’s right to express themselves, and spend more time worrying about what consumers actually want. A recent report on the topic from the Foundation for Advertising Research concludes:

From a consumer viewpoint DTCA has many advantages and few disadvantages. Consumers do not share the concerns expressed by critics of DTCA of consumer safety, increased costs, patient-doctor relationships and medicalisation. Instead they believe DTCA enables them to obtain useful information, a sense of empowerment, a prompt to obtain medical advice and a basis for meaningful and more informed discussions with their doctor about their healthcare.

Late last week the Otago Daily Times reported that euthanasia campaigner Lesley Martin has been barred from holding a public meeting at the University of Otago.

University vice-chancellor Prof. David Skegg said, “The University of Otago encourages academic debate on ethical matters such as euthanasia, but it is not obliged to provide a base for advocacy groups wishing to promote behaviour that is illegal in this country.”

He didn’t mention how you’re supposed to have the debate to legalise something if one side of the argument is banned for promoting something illegal.

Ms Martin said, “To have a knock-back from an academic body, to us, flies in the face of what the university is all about.”

The meeting will now be held at Cargill’s Hotel tomorrow (March 8th).

The Australian Classification Review Board has banned Dr Philip Nitschke’s Peaceful Pill Handbook.

The decision (PDF) states that

The Classification Review Board determined that The Peaceful Pill Handbook warrants Refused Classification (RC) because it instructs in the crime of the manufacture of barbiturates. Further, a majority of the Review Board determined that it also instructs in the crimes of the possession and importation of barbiturates and in offences under Coroners legislation in all States and Territories.

So there you have it. In Australia (and stay alert in New Zealand), free speech is less important that the idea that citizens should surrender control of their lives to their political masters and the loss of free speech is regarded as the acceptable collateral damage from the war on drugs.

Dr Philip Nitschke’s Peaceful Pill Handbook was launched in Auckland yesterday. The censorship threat to this book was mentioned here a couple of weeks ago.

The launch featured a speech by Lindsay Perigo, available from Not PC (MP3, 5.5 MB, 24 min), in which he vigorously defends of freedom of speech. He labels politicians and priests history’s greatest enemies of free speech and discusses the views of some of those we remember as advocates of free speech.

Hat tip: Not PC.

UPDATE 13/2/07: The Dominion Post reports (p A3) that Dr Nitschke is voluntarily taking a copy of the book into the Office of Film and Literature Classification today on the understanding that chief censor Bill Hastings “wanted to review its contents”.

95bfm has an interview between Dr Nitschke and Mikey Havoc (MP3, 16 min), that also touches on censorship and free speech. He mentions that Exit International has shifted its website to New Zealand because Australia has banned discussing suicide over the phone and on the web.

Dr Philip Nitschke is planning to launch his latest book The Peaceful Pill Handbook in Auckland next month (Dominion Post, Jan 26, pA5) and there are concerns that the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) will “review” the book.

The book includes recipes for fatal drug cocktails and instructions on how to make a “peaceful pill” - a DIY suicide tablet.

Office of Film and Literature Classification spokesman David Wilson said it had not reviewed the book, but it was possible it would do so because of the content.

It would most probably be reviewed for criminal activity, he said.

Though suicide is not illegal, it is a crime in New Zealand to incite someone to take their own life.

The office could ban the book or place restrictions on its purchase, including an age limit.

When the book was published in the United States in September, it was classified as a prohibited import by Australian Customs. A more recent decision by the Australian OFLC has meant that the book can be sold to people over 18. Importing the book is still banned and the Australian government is seeking a total ban.

Dr Nitschke’s visit to New Zealand for the book launch is already under a cloud as the Medical Council of New Zealand has written to the Ministry of Health seeking Dr Nitschke’s prosecution here.

The Medical Council of NZ doesn’t want people hearing about euthanasia. They have written to the Ministry of Health claiming that Australian euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke would be practising medicine without a licence during a scheduled trip to New Zealand. He plans to hold two workshops for Exit International.

Dr Nitschke’s last visit to New Zealand in February last year was met with the same response from the Medical Council but the Ministry of Health declined to prosecute, citing insufficient evidence.

Dr Nitschke says that his visit is not illegal: “It’s ridiculous to suggest that the provision of general information about, for example, Switzerland - where assisted suicide is legal - or Mexico … in any way constitutes medical practice. This is a matter of free speech.” (Dominion Post, Jan 24, pA10.)

Following his experiences in Australia’s Northern Territory, Dr Nitschke claims he has given up on political efforts to legalise euthanasia. He is now focussing his efforts on the development and promotion of the “Peaceful Pill”, which would present doctors and politicians with a fait accompli, rendering euthanaisia laws obsolete.

His book, Killing Me Softly, promises “a future where a ‘Peaceful Pill’ could revolutionise euthanasia just as the contraceptive pill revolutionised birth control a generation ago.”

Dr Nitschke claims that doctors have a stranglehold on the dying process and regard death as an affront to their profession to the point that they will completely ignore a patient’s wish to die peacefully at a time of their own choosing. The Medical Council looks as if it’s keen to maintain that stranglehold and is quite happy to use the power of the state to silence its critics.

The Dominion Post is reporting this morning (Jan 20, pA3, not online) that the Smokefree Coalition is lobbying the Film Commission and NZ on Air to withhold funding from productions that “overstate or glamorise smoking”.

A ban would probably include TV3’s hit show Outrageous Fortune, which has received more than $22 million in NZ on Air funding and repeatedly featured its starts, including lead actress Robyn Malcolm, smoking.

This demand for withholding of state funding is a classic example of ‘censorship by privilege’ - the showing of smoking on TV would not be banned (direct censorship), but the state would favour programmes that toed the politically-correct line by funding them at the expense of others. Not PC posted an excellent article on just this topic back in December: “The establishing of an establishment” - a different kind of censorship.

NZ on Air active chief executive Bernard Duncan said it was unlikely the agency could ban smoking because that would influence editorial content, but warnings were a possibility.

Duncan has got it right. State funding of the arts, if it is to occur, must be done with a neutral point of view. Anything else would constitute censorship by privilege. Funding decisions must be made on the basis of artistic merit and other such considerations, not to push the values of a political lobby group.

Bluebirds Foods has withdrawn an advertisment for its potato chips after a compaint to the Advertising Standards Authority by the Obesity Action Coalition.

Not happy with this victory, the OAC is saying that the current system doesn’t work and is demanding that advertising be regulated.

Among its failures is the fact that action is only taken to review an ad once a complaint has been made. This means that vulnerable consumers are always exposed to the irresponsible and misleading ads for some time before they are withdrawn. The ASA say that complaints are dealt with in about 24 days from the time they are received. So, at best, it is weeks before an offending ad is withdrawn.

Like all those who would regulate our speech, they know best and they’re willing to prevent us, the poor “vulnerable consumers” from hearing “irresponsible” information that might lead us to make a choice that they disapprove of.