Doctors, like pharmacists, are subject to a ban on advertising their services. Although the Medical Code of Ethics was slightly liberalized in January, allowing doctors to provide more information about their services, the Act on Medical Activity still explicitly prohibits advertising. This situation may change following a recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which found that the ban on pharmacy advertising is incompatible with EU law. The decision is expected to influence future changes to legislation concerning doctors as well.
“A doctor performs a profession of public trust. In line with the adaptation of Polish regulations to the EU E-Commerce Directive, the Supreme Medical Council amended the Medical Code of Ethics in January this year, allowing doctors to provide information about the scope of their services on social media – in other words, to present commercial information, but always in compliance with professional conduct rules and ethical principles,” said Dr. Anna Banaszewska, legal counsel and pharmacist, in an interview with Newseria.
Article 71 of the new Code specifies how doctors may share information about their practice. It states that physicians may use information about their services, provided it complies with medical ethics. “Information on services offered” is defined as any form of communication intended to disseminate the image of the doctor or services related to the practice of medicine. Importantly, a doctor is responsible not only for their own actions but also for those of third parties who publish such information on their behalf.
“Doctors welcomed the liberalization of the rules, but they are still not fully effective, because the Act on Medical Activity prohibits advertising. Paradoxically, this means that a doctor running an individual or group practice may inform patients that they hold a certificate or specific qualifications, but they cannot describe the full scope of services available at their clinic. Such a statement could be considered an advertisement of a medical entity, which remains prohibited,” Banaszewska explained.
Article 14 of the 2011 Act on Medical Activity requires medical entities to make public information on the types and scope of services they provide. However, the content and form of this information may not have advertising features – meaning it cannot encourage patients to use those services. Upon request, doctors must provide patients with detailed information on services, including diagnostic or therapeutic methods, as well as their quality and safety. In practice, this restricts them to listing services without any promotional elements.
Similarly, a resolution of the Supreme Medical Council from December 2011 sets out detailed rules for public communication. Doctors may provide their professional title, name, place and hours of practice, type of practice, academic degrees, medical specialties, particular skills, special authorizations, phone number, and information on prices and payment methods – provided this information is posted on a website or given via dedicated information hotlines.
“I would also point to dental and medical practices offering so-called aesthetic medicine services. We are still waiting to see if this additional specialization develops further. In this area, the scope of information is much broader, and sometimes I wonder whether it already crosses into a general ban on medical advertising,” the legal counsel added.
Banaszewska noted that the recent CJEU judgment on pharmacies should also have significance for doctors, even if it does not directly apply to them. In June, the Court ruled that a general ban on advertising pharmacies and their services violates the E-Commerce Directive, which allows regulated professionals, such as pharmacists, to use commercial information online to promote their practice. The Court explained that while the content and form of such information must comply with professional rules, there cannot be a total ban on all advertising.
“In 2017, the CJEU also issued a ruling in Belgium in the case of a dentist accused in criminal proceedings of violating a total ban on advertising dental services. The Court again found that such a prohibition in another EU member state violated the same provisions as the pharmacy advertising ban. Therefore, Poland should make a self-correction in this area – and the sooner, the better – because the situation is highly analogous,” Banaszewska said.
The expert concluded that amendments to the Act on Medical Activity and further liberalization of the Medical Code of Ethics are necessary. The advertising ban should be replaced with alternative instruments that ensure compliance with EU law while protecting public health.
