Evening star., 1962-09-28
By ROBERT X. WALSH
Star slaA Writer

A~A-A
also came closer to administra-
ton wishes because a provision
lopposed by the Health. Educa-
ton and Welfare Department
was greatly modified.
Critics Of that provision sue
lceeded in striking out language
whereby drug firms, in adver-
tising new drugs to doctors,
would not have had to include
information about side effects
IL it were readily available else
where to doctors.
Work Out Accord
They worked out an agree
ment with Commerce Commit
tee Chairman Harris, Democrat
of Arkansas. to insert q re-
lquirement that such advertise
lments include "a brief sum-
mary" relating to side effects,
contra indications and effec-
litveness Of new drugs.
Mr.. Harris, whose committee
had approved the original pro-
vision which was not in the
Senate bill. conceded that the
words "a brief summary" might
be vague. He said he believed
House and Senate conferees
would be able to work out some-
thing more definite in requir-
ing reasonably complete infor-
nation In advertising.
Although some supporters Of
the legislation hoped the SEN
ate would accept the House bill
without sending it to confer
ence, this seemed unlikely to-
day. Senate and House meas
ures contain several other i'm
portant and sometimes highly
technical differences which Mr..
Harris indicated should be left
to q conference committee to
reconcile.
Disputed Provision
The House bill, for instance,
requires that q doctor obtain
the consent Of q patient or the
patients representative In or
der to prescribe a new drug.
This is not in the Senate bill
and was criticized by several
House members yesterday. Crit
les indicated they preferred to
let conferees consider the prob
lem rather than press for an
amendment in the House.
The bill as q whole aroused
no real opposition in the House
but 1t was debated for almost
five hours. Sponsors remarked
that drug legislation Of this
kind has long been urged but
gained ground fairly recently in
Congress mainly because Of the
thalidomide cases.
Besides adopting the revised
amendment offered by Repre-
sentative Blatnik. Democrat OF
Minnesota, concerning adver-
tising of drug side effects. the
House also approved a pre-
emption" amendment present.
ed by Representative Smith,
Democrat Of Virginia.
No Effect on State Law
Mr.. Smith, perennial oppo-
nent Of Federal pre-emption of
State laws in various areas,
won adoption Of an amendment
declaring that no provision of
the Federal drug regulation bill
could replace or nullify any
State law on the same subject
unless an obvious conflict ex-
isted.
The House also added an
amendment by Representative
Collier, Republican Of New
York. spelling out in much
more detail than did the origi-
nal bill the scope Of Federal
inspection Of drug manufac-
turers.
Amendments submitted by
Representative Sullivan, Dem
ocrat Of Missouri, intended to
strike out provisions relating to
the use Of drug substances and
Iadditives In animal feed were
rejected. Mrs. Sullivan protest.
led that animal feeds had no
place in the legislation de-
isigned to provide safer and bet
ter drugs for human consump-
ton.
She and Representative De-
laney, Democrat of New York,
also challenged the safety Of
some additives In feed given
to animals. Noting that the
provision was not in the Sem
ate bill, they said they hoped
conferees would disapprove it.
Harris Objects
Mr.. Harris strenuously OBJ
ljected to the Blatnik amend
ment that would require drug
manufacturers to advertise In
formation about side-effects OF
drugs. He explained he favored
the widest possible information
Eof that kind but contended that
it would be readily available
to doctors without having to
be included in detail in adver-
tisements in medical journals.
He declared it would be diff
Ificult to include everything In