VMD and free speech

RE: VMD and free speech

Judith Joyce — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 09:07:21 GMT

Some practices might like to take another look at their practice newsletters and websites on that basis,

RE: VMD and free speech

Ben Walker — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 22:59:52 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31145/vmd-and-free-speech/246776#246776"]I think you could safely argue that correcting misinformation is not promoting.[/quote]

Exactly. As long as you are factual and balanced you won’t run afoul of either the legislation or the supporting guidance.

RE: VMD and free speech

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 22:48:57 GMT

I think you could safely argue that correcting misinformation is not promoting.

RE: VMD and free speech

Elizabeth — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 22:38:33 GMT

So where do we stand if for example there's a Facebook post spreading misinformation about a product. Are we allowed to correct the information or do we have to keep quiet?

RE: VMD and free speech

Ben Walker — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 19:39:29 GMT

[quote userid="24356" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31145/vmd-and-free-speech"]Is it advertising that it's cracking down on or any chat? Does it include vets/rvns ?[/quote]

Hi Elizabeth,

It would include MRCVS/RVNs. But not in a meaningful way. And it isn't a change in guidance. Our supporting guidance is in line with what the VMD is asking of Arlo. In fact, our guidance is stricter as it also covers non-POM-V products and veterinary services:

23.14 Where the word ‘advertising’ is used in this chapter, it should be read to include all forms of advertising. The RCVS defines these different forms of advertising as follows:

a. Advertisement - the dissemination of information with the aim of informing the public about a veterinary product or service.

b. Endorsement – the association of a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse with a veterinary product or service with the aim of encouraging the public to buy or use the veterinary product or service based on the support or approval of the veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse.

c. Promotion – the dissemination of information with the aim of increasing the sales or use of a veterinary product or service.

d. Publicity – the dissemination of information with the aim of attracting attention to a veterinary product or service.

e. Recommendation - a suggestion or specific veterinary advice stating that a veterinary product or service is good, suitable, or the best choice for a particular purpose or animal.

23.15 [...] All advertising should provide factual and balanced information which enables the public to make informed choices about the veterinary products and services available to their animals.

The Human Medicines Regulations and the Veterinary Medicines Regulations both define advertising as, respectively:

anything designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or use of that product.

and

the making of a representation in any form in connection with those products in order to promote their supply, distribution, sale, prescription or use

Theoretically, journalistic content could meet the criteria of being called an "advert" under the definition of the legislation. If the content is promotional in nature then the main question is whether the representation was made "in order to" promote. Best just to avoid promotional content.

Recommendations in the course of treatment are covered later in the same section of the RCVS supporting guidance and is fine provided it is clinically justified.

RE: VMD and free speech

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:40:25 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31145/vmd-and-free-speech/246769#246769"]So the VMD will do their best to clobber journalists[/quote]

That's overstating things. I have to be fair and say that by the MHRA standard, I would accept that my film had a promotional vibe, and it is that which the VMA came to clobber me for (although it was targeted at vets and nurses, and that is allowed).

However, because it has not differentiated between journalism and advertising, it tries to apply rules pertaining to the latter, to the former, which does stifle free speech (because they put advertising-based criteria on what journalists can publish and where).

I have gone back and argued that a better strategy in today's world would be to encourage factual, non-promotional journalism which counters some of the mis-information that abounds, and we shall see whether the VMD agrees, disagrees or just ignores me!

RE: VMD and free speech

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:00:06 GMT

So the VMD will do their best to clobber journalists, however accurately, however responsibly, they may be writing; but will disregard, because it's impractical to do anything else, all those "members of the public" blethering away tendentiously, ignorantly and inaccurately on social meeja, Youchube, Twitface and all the other horrors of t'internet.

RE: VMD and free speech

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 13:21:18 GMT

Hi Elizabeth

Well, it means that 'no person' shall advertise a POM.

So that's anyone, inc vets and rvns. As to what advertising is, I took it to mean what you and I would understand by the term - ie an activity conducted by companies or suppliers or people who sell stuff to sell their wares.

The VMD sees it differently and defines advertising as anything which it thinks promotes the sale (to consumers), which combined with 'any person', could basically mean anyone who says anything favourable about a POM online.

The VMD says that if info is educational and provides no brand names, then it will likely not be considered as promotional - but of course not many members of the public outline all the different options when posting on social media!

But that is just the VMDs opinion and it would have to be tested in court.

And in reality, I don't think the VMD has the time or resources to police every social media post ever made.

Looking at human medicines / law, the MRHA takes a rather more enlightened and progressive view, distinguishing between journalism and advertising etc. It says journalism and public debate are different, but can still be promotional. Fair enough.

Having seen the MHRA guidance, my view is that balanced free speech about POMs is fine, and I don't see any basis in law for saying brand names should not be mentioned. However I think it would be wise for even private individuals to avoid sounding like they are recommending or promoting the use of a particular POM. I would be particularly careful of that if I was a vet or VN, because if you don't for example, talk of all (or most) of the available options or appear to be recommending one over the rest, I think that would probably be seen as promotional.

That said, I think the worst that will happen is that they ask you to take it down, or have it removed.

Incidentally, I think the reason for my disagreement with the VMD was largely because it had not considered free speech / journalism as a separate thing to advertising ... so they kept saying: "you're advertising" and I kept saying "no I am not". In fact, I do see the sense in not promoting POMs to the public and the MHRA guidance to journalists re human medicine seems reasonable.