Our Ref: HJS/ljm

16 February 2000

Dear Dr Medawar

Case AUTH/949/10/99: Advertisement for Detrisitol

Thank you for your letter of 7 February.

We will add Social Audit to our mailing list to regularly receive copies of the quarterly Code of Practice Review. It is our intention to put case reports and other information on the Internet in due course but we cannot offer that facility at the moment.

We had not seen the letters to which you refer when the Code of Practice Panel considered the matter. In accordance with our Constitution and Procedure, complaints are dealt with on the basis of the evidence put forward by the complainant and the respondent, but with the assistance of an external expert opinion in appropriate cases.

The question of reference to rulings etc by other bodies has recently provoked debate with some believing that such references on the part of either the complainant or the respondent should not be permitted as being prejudicial to fair consideration of the complaint and others believing they should be allowed and that it should be left to the Code of Practice Panel and, where appropriate, to the Code of Practice Appeal Board, to give them such weight as they see fit. The latter is the position at the present time, though related rulings are in fact rarely referred to by either party.

Related rulings would not be taken into account when deciding what sanctions were appropriate. It is behaviour in the United Kingdom which is the criterion.

As regards the reported comment by a Pharmacia & Upjohn spokesperson to which you refer, companies may not like adverse rulings but the essential thing is that they comply with them.

As far as we are concerned, this case is now closed. You say that you look forward to reading the Panel's ruling in due course but that was set out in full in the case report which has already been sent to you.

	Contents page
	What's New?