The healthcare system is meant to serve the people, providing them with affordable, reliable, and ethical care. However, for years, the influence of pharmaceutical companies has made it harder for many to access life-saving medications at reasonable prices. The Supreme Court of India has recently emphasised the need for a drastic shift in the way medicines are prescribed, urging the government to mandate that doctors only prescribe generic drugs.

The Growing Issue of Unethical Pharmaceutical Marketing

In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) hearing, the Supreme Court acknowledged the serious issue of pharmaceutical companies offering incentives to doctors to promote branded medicines. These practices, although not always visible, have been influencing the healthcare system in harmful ways. It has been observed that these incentives often lead doctors to prescribe expensive branded drugs, even when generic alternatives are available, cheaper, and just as effective. The Supreme Court recent call for a nationwide policy that mandates the prescription of only generic medicines is a response to this crisis, to ensure that healthcare is not a privilege for the few but a right for all.

Why Generic Medicines?

The idea of prescribing only generic medicines is not a new one. Rajasthan has already implemented an executive instruction that requires all medical professionals in the state to prescribe generic drugs. This has shown positive results in ensuring that medicines are affordable and easily accessible. The Supreme Court highlighted that a similar policy across the nation could bring about a substantial transformation in public health, ensuring that even those in the most economically disadvantaged segments of society can access the treatment they need without the burden of high costs.

The Legal Battle for Change

The PIL, filed by the Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives Associations of India, challenges the voluntary regulatory framework that currently governs pharmaceutical marketing practices. The petitioners argue that the voluntary code has not been effective in curbing unethical marketing strategies. These include offering doctors gifts, travel incentives, and other perks to encourage the over-prescription of branded drugs.

While the Union of India has argued that the existing regulations under the Indian Medical Council do require doctors to prescribe medicines by their generic names, the Supreme Court was not convinced. The Supreme Court observed that the absence of a binding mandate has led to inconsistent implementation, leaving room for loopholes and unethical behaviour. The Bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, expressed that such a framework does not do enough to protect public health and that stricter enforcement is needed.

A Glimpse of Hope: Rajasthan’s Success Story

Rajasthan’s decision to require doctors to prescribe only generic drugs has set an example for the rest of the country. The Supreme Court referred to this action as a success story and suggested that a similar mandate nationwide could change the healthcare landscape for the better. This reference was significant, as it showed that such a policy could work in practice, especially when backed by the right administrative support.

Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that such a nationwide directive could have far-reaching consequences. By making treatment more affordable and reducing the influence of pharmaceutical companies over doctors’ prescribing practices, the policy could ensure that healthcare becomes more accessible to everyone, irrespective of their financial status.

What Lies Ahead: The Road to Reform

The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings in July to continue discussing the matter. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the urgency of the issue and the need for a binding law that regulates the marketing practices of pharmaceutical companies. This would ensure that doctors are not swayed by incentives to over-prescribe branded medicines and that patients’ well-being is placed above corporate interests.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are based on the available information and may not reflect the latest developments in this ongoing case. The article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

Also Read:

Delayed But Not Denied: Supreme Court Revives Claims Under Limitation Law

Uniform Civil Code is Not Just Law, It’s Humanity, Says Karnataka HC

Understanding the Law of Torts Bare Act: A Complete Guide