Washington’s latest tempest in a pill bottle over direct-to-consumer drug advertisements has entered a new phase, now that the pharmaceutical industry is offering up a list of self-imposed guidelines to regulate their marketing. We can’t help but wonder, what’s the point?

Ads for prescription drugs first hit the airwaves in 1997, thanks to a rule change from the Food and Drug Administration. TV spots now tout drugs for particular symptoms or conditions, although the ads must also list possible serious risks and refer viewers to a print ad that offers more fine print.

The ads appear to be effective, despite the long and often cringe-inducing recitation of side effects they feature. One study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that every $1 in direct-to-consumer ad spending yields $4.20 in additional revenue. Another Kaiser poll found that a quarter of respondents had talked to their doctors about a medicine they saw advertised, and three-quarters of those people ultimately received a prescription either for the marketed drug or another one.

To some, this might simply be evidence that marketing works, but for “consumer advocates,” it’s evidence that greedy big pharma is manipulating innocent consumers. To which the industry replies that the ads are educational as much as promotional, and that ads boost drug sales because they raise awareness in people who might otherwise not realize they were at risk for a condition or that a treatment was available. This theory isn’t mere pie in the sky.

Drug ads fit into a wider trend of patients becoming better informed about their medical options, a pattern described by, among others, Henry McKinnell, chairman and chief executive of Pfizer and author of “A Call to Action: Taking Back Healthcare for Future Generations.” In his book, Mr. McKinnell observes that “patients now play a much more active role in their health than they ever did.” Part of that involves going into the examination room armed with information on diseases and treatments obtained from the library, the Internet, and even from television ads. A third Kaiser study found that consumers who watched drug ads were more likely to give correct answers to questions about health issues raised in the spots they had viewed.

Fears about over prescribing or incorrect prescribing appear to be misplaced. Mr. McKinnell cites one study from the National Consumers League that found that 80% of patients who raised a drug ad with their doctors were more interested in hearing about all the treatment options for a condition than in demanding the specific drug they saw advertised.

A major concern about drug ads is that they don’t warn consumers effectively enough about side effects, sparking a blind rush to the pharmacy. And several of the voluntary guidelines are intended to increase the emphasis on risks. Yet why should it even be the responsibility of drugmakers to craft 30-second television spots that highlight all of the risks of their products? These are, after all, prescription drugs, so patients must discuss their use with a doctor who is presumably better informed about the drugs in the first place. Because their use arises only after contact with a physician, such drugs are different from just about any other product that carries a warning label in our risk-averse marketplace.

When asked why it is so important that drug companies educate consumers as well as doctors in respect of side effects, a family physician and spokesman for the American Medical Association, Edward Livingston, told the Sun that otherwise doctors might face, and surrender to, extraordinary pressure from patients who might not have complete information. With all due respect to the thousands of dedicated physicians across the country who make the same case, that argument says more about the doctors than it does about the drug companies or consumers.

Unfortunately, large pharmaceutical companies make such an inviting target for politicians and anti-corporate “consumer groups” that such fine points get lost in the shuffle. As a result, Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen and Iowa’s allegedly Republican senator, Charles Grassley, were quick to pounce on this week’s voluntary advertising rules. Public Citizen called the proposal “meaningless,” and Mr. Grassley charged that the plan “doesn’t deliver a single guarantee for consumers.” Mr. Grassley appears ready to push ahead with the stricter ad regulation he introduced in the Senate in April.

For their part, the drugmakers might be as motivated by their fear of trial lawyers as by anything else. That, at least, is one interpretation of the proposal to allow the FDA to screen ads earlier. But if the pharmaceutical companies are hoping that such regulatory approval would shield them from frivolous lawsuits, they should remember that the FDA approved the litigation-prone Vioxx, too. Given that such frivolous torts are probably inevitable anyway, it’s a shame to see the pharmaceutical companies opting not to take a stand in favor of free advertising speech.