Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-11T06:53:14.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Professional Advertiser: How Do We Draw the Line (If There is a Line)?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

John D. Grad
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A half-page advertisement in the 1982 Yellow Pages of a large East Coast metropolis read: “The Podiatry Center. For information on foot health, call the following numbers….” The advertisement contained an address and some other information pertinent to foot health, but did not contain the names of any individual podiatrists.

Many podiatrists were angry be cause the “Podiatry Center” was not a hospital, podiatry school or any other kind of institution; instead, it was a doctors’ office. The advertisement, many podiatrists felt, was purposely misleading to the public, suggesting that the ‘Podiatry Center” was something more than just an office of individual podiatrists.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , October 1984 , pp. 199 - 203
Copyright
© 1984 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

E.g., American Dental Association, Principles of Ethics §14 (1974), reprinted in Encyclopedia of Bioethics (Free Press, New York, N.Y.) (1978) (“A dentist may properly utilize office door lettering and signs provided that their style and text are consistent with the dignity of the profession”).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.1 (American Bar Association, Chicago, Ill.) (1983).Google Scholar
See Principles of Ethics, supra note 1.Google Scholar
421 U.S. 773 (1975).Google Scholar
See, e.g., American Medical Association v. Federal Trade Commission, 638 F.2d 443 (2d Cir. 1980), aff'd, 455 U.S. 676 (1982) (per curiam) (court split 4–4 in decision). See also United States v. National Soc'y of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. 679 (1978). This decision held that a bylaw provision prohibiting competitive bidding would not be saved by a “rule of reason” analysis merely because a profession was involved.Google Scholar
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982).Google Scholar
There are open questions, of course, concerning restrictions in ‘time, place and manner” of advertising and quality advertising, as discussed later in this article.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Va. Code §54-317 (13) (1982) (prohibiting health care professionals from disseminating advertising which is “false, deceptive or misleading, [or which] contains a claim of superiority”). For lawyers, see American Bar Association, Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR2-101 (A) (ABA, Chicago, Ill.) (1980) (prohibiting legal advertising which contains a “false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim”). For physicians, see Current Opinions of the American Medical Association §5.01, (AMA, Chicago, Ill.) (1984).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Va Code §54-317.4 (1982 & Supp. 1983).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Principles of Ethics, supra note 1.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Va Code §54-317(5) (1982); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 91, §160 (Smith-Hurd 1966) (both proscribing an advertisement which claims a cure for a manifestly incurable disease).Google Scholar
421 U.S. 809 (1975).Google Scholar
425 U.S. 748 (1976).Google Scholar
433 U.S. 350 (1977).Google Scholar
In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978).Google Scholar
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 456 U.S. 447 (1978).Google Scholar
Id. at 449.Google Scholar
In re Primus, supra note 15. at 422.Google Scholar
Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (1979).Google Scholar
447 U.S. 557 (1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 567–70.Google Scholar
455 U.S. 191. 206–07 (1982).Google Scholar
American Medical Association v. Federal Trade Commission, 638 F.2d 443, 452 (2d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
In re R.M.J., supra note 22, at 203.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975); Virginia State Board of Pharmacists v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).Google Scholar
491 F. Supp. 132 (E.D. La. 1978).Google Scholar
Id. at 137.Google Scholar
Obralik, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
Zimmerman v. Office of Grievance Committee, 438 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1981).Google Scholar
Friedman v. Rogers, supra note 19, at 13.Google Scholar
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 372 (1977).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Va. Code §54-317.4(D) (1982 & Supp. 1983); Mich Comp. Laws Ann. §333.16244 (1980).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356, 372–73 (4th Cir. 1979); Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR7-107 (1980).Google Scholar
American Bar Association, Fair Trial and Free Press §1.1 (1978) reprinted in American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice (ABA, Chicago, Ill.) (2d ed. 1984).Google Scholar