Below is a copy of the note I sent to our governor and lt. governor
about the hospital formula pack issue. To me, the argument that
marketing to consumers in hospitals is unethical business and medical
practice is an important and compelling argument. Why don't we use
that argument more in our press releases and interviews. We don't
even talk about it much among ourselves. Among ourselves, we compare
formula packs to cigarette packs in a cancer or pulmonary unit or
Snickers bars in a diabetes clinic. We wisely do not make these
arguments publicly, they would be offensive and misunderstood.
However, I think the conversation about the ethics of marketing in
medical settings should happen. Are we the only ones with the
problem? Physicians are very unhappy that medications are now
marketed in Newsweek magazine and on TV. Why are formula packs in
hospitals different? If anything, marketing in a medical setting is
even worse than marketing medicine in a public setting. There is a
added issue of implies endorsement by the medical institution. Are
there any other situations in which this type of marketing happens? I
imagine that medical companies have sound some, but I can't think of
any right now.
This is also important from a tactical point of view. We should work
with others who face this issue to bring the broader issue to the
attention of the public and the medical community.
Also, I think Romney's argument that the formula packs are an
important part of women's choice is so ridiculous that it is not
worthy of being argued against. We have to bring the conversation to
a higher level. if Romney can join us at that higher level, great, if
not, it's not our problem.
Any thoughts?
Naomi Bar-Yam
> Governor Romney,
>
> When I read a few weeks ago that Massachusetts was implementing
> regulations prohibiting hospitals from distributing take home
> formula packs to new mothers, I was very proud that our state's
> government and public health department had recognized the take
> home packs for what they are, marketing. Marketing using the highly
> regarded names of hospitals to advertise products that are known to
> undermine mothers' and babies' health is, at best, unethical
> business and medical practice.
>
> I am quite disappointed that this ruling is now being questioned.
> It says that the administration does not trust its own public
> health department to act in the best interests of the health of the
> community, and that mothers cannot be trusted to make informed
> sound decisions for themselves and their babies without the "help"
> of corporations whose allegiance by law and definition is to stock
> holders, not mothers and babies.
>
> The formula packs are not gifts, they are advertising. They do not
> give new mothers information which could help them make an informed
> feeding choice for their babies, they advertise one formula brand
> to mothers. Their distribution by hospitals implies that the
> hospital endorse that brand of formula when the reality is that the
> formula company has cut the best deal with the hospital.
>
> Please let the Department of Public Health do its job serving the
> best interests of the health of our community.
--------------------------------
Naomi Bar-Yam Ph.D.
[log in to unmask]
617-964-6676
Researcher, Writer, Educator
in Maternal and Child Health
--------------------------------
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
