PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Condom--legal aspects”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1987

Sale of Condoms Act 1987 (No. 72 of 1987), 27 November 1987.

This Act legalizes the sale of condoms in shops through vending machines installed by a licensed installer and by mail order. It also gives the Publications Classifications Board the right to consider the advertising of condoms and to approve or refuse to approve such advertising. It is to approve advertising only if it is "satisfied that there are medical, hygienic, or social benefits to be gained" from the advertising. Further provisions of the Act set forth licensing procedures and penalties for violation of the Act, among other things.

Advertising↗
PubMed1987

Decree No. 87-772, 23 September 1987.

This Decree sets forth regulations on advertising of pharmaceuticals. Under it, condoms are in general to be treated as other non-prescription medicaments with respect to advertising. In addition, any manufacturer or distributor seeking authorization to advertise condoms must, if the product is new, submit a file justifying the announced properties of the product as well as the address of the place or places of manufacture and an example of labelling of the product. The manufacturer or distributor may also be asked to furnish all information indispensable for the verification of the exactitude of the product. Comments appearing on packaging, containers, brochures, or instructions are in no case exempted from the requirement of obtaining an authorization to advertise.

Advertising↗
PubMed1987

Act No. 87-39.

Among other things, this Act repeals Article L.282 of the Code of Public Health, which had prohibited advertising in relation to prophylaxis and treatment of venereal diseases. The Act also amends Article L.551 of the Code to provide that "advertising or publicity, in any form whatsoever of contraceptives for males (condoms), as a means of preventing the contracting of sexually transmitted diseases" shall be subject to the provisions laid down by Decree."

Advertising↗
PubMed1987

Judgment, 7 July 1987.

The owner of condom vending machines located on the outside wall of a restaurant challenged an administrative order requiring the removal of the machines. The Court noted that under previous case law the sale of condoms could be prohibited only under very restrictive circumstances since such a prohibition interferes with the guaranteed right to exercise a profession. It held that the location of the vending machine did not amount to such circumstances because the machine was not necessarily visible to passers-by and did not create a disturbance for children, churchgoers, or anyone else. It also pointed out the prevailing current liberal attitudes towards sexuality.

Condoms↗
PubMed1987

Resolution, 1 June 1987.

This Resolution requires all pharmaceutical dispensaries to maintain a stock of condoms for supply to the public. The condoms are to be furnished to clients on request, without any formality.

Condoms↗
PubMed1984

A trojan horse goes to court: Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.

In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., the Supreme Court held that a statute prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives was unconstitutional as applied to Young's advertisements for condoms. The decision rested on a balancing of the first amendment's grant of free speech with the Government's interest in safeguarding an individual's privacy. The Court noted that the advertisements promoted the flow of information on contraception, and pertained to constitutionally protected private activity. This Case Comment argues that the Court's decision is sound and criticizes the view of the concurring opinion that shielding individuals from potentially offensive speech is a substantial governmental interest. The Comment concludes that the Court's decision expands upon precedent which established an individual's right of privacy regarding the use of contraceptives.

Advertising↗