To the Editor: A new trend of doctors appearing in television advertisements is emerging in this country. This has occurred with some impetus over the past year, and now involves not just everyday medical practitioners, but highly regarded public figures. The ethical implications of such advertisements are worthy of some thought.

There has been no formal discussion regarding these issues, and the New South Wales Medical Board does not cover it specifically within the Code of professional conduct.1 This has allowed medical practitioners to participate in the advertisements with no guilt about the possible ethical flaws of their actions. This is perhaps a premature response, as there are several areas where the ethics are potentially questionable.

The first is the creation of a conflict of interest. The idea of a doctor being sponsored by a drug company is covered, to some extent, by the Code.1 As is well understood, a medical practitioner must declare to a patient any financial dealings he or she has with a company involved in the treatment of that patient.2 For the described commercials, the drugs are invariably over-the-counter general medications, like analgesics or vitamin supplements. A medical practitioner may recommend these frequently, and it would be difficult to explain to each patient the nature of the doctor’s connection to the drug company while maintaining the high level of integrity and trust expected within modern practice.

Then there is the nature of the advertisements themselves. Medical practitioners can be seen advocating specific products for use by their patients, their families and sometimes even themselves. They display their medical qualifications as a reason for consumers to trust them, playing on the esteem and regard in which doctors are still held in large parts of the community. This is a big risk to take, especially when considering the questionable benefit of some of the treatments being advocated.

I believe that the practice is poor for the public image of doctors and, even if ethically tolerable, it may be prudent for it to be openly frowned upon by the profession. However, the profession may consider it completely acceptable. What is lacking is a frank and open discussion on the ethics involved.