AUTH/1921/11/06: Retired Hospital Doctor v Schering Health Care (LARC public advertisement) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1921/11/06
Complainant	Retired hospital doctor
Company	Schering Health Care Limited
Material	Marks and Spencer magazine (Christmas 2006) page headed “Advertisement Promotion” and “Time for you to take control” about LARC
Therapy/topic	Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC): IUS, IUD, implant, injection
Main allegation	No warnings/precautions; no warning that progestogens were recognised by IARC/WHO as carcinogenic and genotoxic
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 20.2
Decision	No breach
Panel note	Concern about imbalance favouring IUS and website patient profiles; taken up as separate complaint (AUTH/1936/12/06)
Complaint received	23 November 2006
Case completed	16 February 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A retired hospital doctor complained about a Schering Health Care advertisement/feature on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in the Marks and Spencer magazine (Christmas 2006).
The page was headed “Advertisement Promotion” and “Time for you to take control” and discussed contraception for working mothers.
A highlighted box described four LARC methods: intrauterine system (IUS), intrauterine device (IUD), implant, injection (all except the IUD released progestogen).
The complainant alleged the piece lacked warnings/precautions and did not warn that progestogens were recognised by IARC/WHO as carcinogenic and genotoxic.
Schering said it was a non-promotional health information piece (no brand names), included at M&S insistence to label it as an advertisement feature, and directed readers to a website and to consult a doctor/family planning nurse.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code.
No breach of Clause 20.2; therefore no breach of Clauses 2 and 9.1.
Panel raised separate concerns about balance (IUS presented more positively; website patient profiles focused on IUS) and initiated a separate complaint under Paragraph 17 (Case AUTH/1936/12/06).

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access