The article in The Hill begins:

The nation’s leading business group is mounting a new attack on advertisements run by trial lawyers that tell consumers about the negative side effects from medical drugs and devices.

Let me start — I don’t like modern attorney advertising. Locally in northern Alabama, we have an attorney on television advertising for automobile accident injury cases who refuses to help injured people in court. And, we have outside lawyers running ads for drug cases who are not even licensed in Alabama.

I find most of these ads distasteful. I don’t disagree with the complaints about them. Yet, the Chamber of Commerce’s approach is pure hypocrisy. While attacking television advertisements from lawyers, the Chamber has done nothing to reduce deceptive drug company advertisements. The Chamber is protecting the drug companies who rush deadly and dangerous drugs to market for huge profits. As one attorney noted:

The attack ad [by the Chamber] is really inappropriate primarily because it tries to say ‘let’s keep the real side effects private and doctors will prescribe it.’

Will the fight between the Chamber of Commerce and advertising lawyers heat up? According to the article, the Chamber claims lawyer advertisements related to Xarelto were deceptive and resulted in 30 patients suffering injury when they stopped taking the medication after seeing such advertisements. My question — Why isn’t the Chamber raising questions about the huge number of patients who saw television advertisements from Xarelto’s manufacturer, began taking the drug and then suffered an uncontrolled bleeding injury? Why isn’t the Chamber raising questions about direct advertising from drug manufacturers that understates or completely ignores very serious risks?

We need to examine both sides of drug and medical device advertising. The American Association for Justice (AAJ) responded to the Chamber’s push against lawyer advertising by noting:

the pharmaceutical industry has been fighting for decades to continue advertising and selling their products while doing everything to avoid accountability when those drugs hurt patients.

The Chamber and the manufacturers of defective medical products cannot have it both ways. They want to advertise directly to prospective patients. They want consumers to see ads touting an easy cure with a pill. At the same time, in Alabama and many other states, the manufacturers are protected from liability by the Learned Intermediary Doctrine. Under this Doctrine, a drug maker basically fulfills its duty to warn users of a drug’s risks by warning the prescribing physician. In other words, the duty to warn of dangers by drug makers runs to the doctor not the patient. Should this doctrine still protect drug manufacturers who are making sales pitches directly to the public by television advertisements? I don’t think so. Others have questioned the continued application of this defense as well.

Our system for approving and marketing drugs needs an overhaul. Too many dangerous drugs are rushed to market by manufacturers who know the serious risks but hide the facts from the FDA. Then, the same companies market these drugs directly to consumers by television. That’s wrong.

For drug companies, patients have become numbers instead of people. Unfortunately, some lawyers and marketers seeking volumes of clients have the same view. It’s wrong on both sides. Patients injured by dangerous drugs or defective medical devices need dedicated attorneys to advocate on their behalf.

If you are seeking legal counsel for an injury, ask questions. Will you have an attorney who will talk to you throughout the case? Will you have an attorney who will study your medical records and injuries? Is the attorney you called simply going to refer you elsewhere? Will the attorney stay involved in your case? We do. Has the attorney you called handled these cases? We have. You should be satisfied with the attorney you hire. If you are not fully satisfied, talk to several attorneys before making a decision that could greatly impact your future.