Ethics Newsline®

Artificial heart inventor Robert Jarvik’s credentials and the depiction of him as an athlete are questioned; press reports note that commercials are part of larger issue about the ethics of advertising prescription drugs

NEW YORK
Pharmaceutical company Pfizer, bombarded with complaints that its ads for a cholesterol-lowering drug were misleading, last week said it will cancel its campaign featuring artificial heart inventor Robert Jarvik.

The New York Times reports that the decision came after critics, including some in Congress, claimed the commercials misrepresented Dr. Jarvik and his credentials. While Jarvik holds a medical degree, he is not licensed to practice medicine and never has practiced.

While the controversial ad depicts Jarvik rowing across a lake while extolling the health benefits of the drug Lipitor, the rower is actually a body double, an experienced athlete who looks like Jarvik. Jarvik, reports the Times, apparently does not engage in the sport.

According to trade journal Advertising Age, Pfizer maintains that the ad offered valuable and accurate advice. But the company’s president of worldwide pharmaceutical operations, Ian Read, admitted that the presentation was misleading.

“The way in which we presented Dr. Jarvik in these ads has, unfortunately, led to misimpressions and distractions from our primary goal of encouraging patient and physician dialogue on the leading cause of death in the world — cardiovascular disease,” Read said. “We regret this. Going forward, we commit to ensuring there is greater clarity in our advertising regarding the presentation of spokespeople in the statement.”

Lipitor produces revenues of more than $12 billion a year, but the drug faces tough competition from generic medicines. The Jarvik ads were an attempt to keep sales from eroding, according to the Wall Street Journal.

An analysis from TIME magazine notes that the Jarvik fracas is part of a larger controversy over the ethics of advertising prescription drugs. “We have an oil and water situation where we have our drug development and sales done on a free market model in the same way we sell cars and refrigerators. But our medical care is done on a fiduciary duty, privacy and trust model. We throw those two together and we act surprised that we have conflicts of interest,” Northwestern University bioethicist Katie Watson told TIME. “We have a cognitive dissonance in America where we want the free market and we also want our physicians and everything involved in our health to be loyal to us as individuals. It’s hard to have both.”

Sources: New York Times, Feb. 25 — TIME, Feb. 26 — Advertising Age, Feb. 25 — Wall Street Journal, Feb. 25.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 18 — Related Newsline Commentary, Feb. 11 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 10, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 1, 2007.