One of the dumbest lawsuits I've ever heard.
1) Individuals have first amendment rights. I don't think companies do.
2) How is it even remotely a good idea for ANYONE - the companies, the
patients, the doctors or those of us footing the bill - to allow
promotion of off-label use? I sympathize with the notion that proper
off-label use can do wonderful things and could even reduce costs.
However, isn't the downside here a lot worse? If a condition has no
cure, and something in the marketplace can treat it off-label, it's a)
very likely that the doctor on the case will figure this out and b)
it's very likely the drug will be submitted for testing to the FDA.
PROMOTING its use, however, seems like it opens up a can of worms -
basically circumventing the whole purpose of the FDA.
Dumb dumb dumb.
I oppose the healthcare plan on the basis that it doesn't allow
drugmakers to profit from their beneficial research. I've always been
more skeptical of drug marketing - while there is a benefit to
informing the public and informing doctors that they don't have to
live with the conditions they have, and that treatment exists, drug
marketing far exceeds the level required for that social purpose and,
empirically, hasn't helped the drug makers. The idea of "restricting"
(not directly, that's government interventionist scary, but by
withholding funding to labs that work with companies that spend too
much on marketing, or something along those lines) industry
ad-spending isn't a bad one. Advertising off-label is an order of
magnitude dumber than that.