Pharmaceutical drugs should not be advertised to the general public

[John_Mace]

@Voyager

The demand should be independent of advertising in a just world, since advertising doesn’t make anyone sick (in that way, at least.) The drug a doctor prescribes should also be independent of TV. Generics don’t advertise, so ads for brand names, and doctors who might prescribe them to shut the patient up drive up the cost of medicine.

And of course there is the goal of creating new diseases. You may have heard the radio ads now running for laser treatment of toenail fungus, which affects someone’s love life supposedly (I guess if he is going out with a foot fetishist.) Admittedly this is not covered by insurance (I hope) but is a good example.

Get back to me when we live in a “just” world. And why should the drug a doctor gives a patient be “independent of TV”? I’m not sure what that means exactly, but it isn’t like TV is inherently evil or anything.

In short, I reject your premises, so your conclusions aren’t valid.

But sure, some drug companies try to “invent” new diseases, but so what? All companies try to create some demand for their products that certain people are going to say is unnecessary. But in a free society, we let individuals decide what they need or don’t need.

[shiftless]

Those of you who feel like drug companies should be allowed to advertise all they want, how do you feel about the fact that the general public is restricted, by law, in their access to those products? I mean, if we don’t need a nanny state then we don’t need a nanny state.

I would be happy if the drug companies were at least required to be truthful in their ads. The ad where we see what they want us to believe is a cross section of an artery, with what they want us to think is plates of sticky cholesterol clogging up the works, drives me crazy. It’s fear tactics combined with vague misinformation. Their veiled promise that I will get laid more if I use the little blue pill is outright false too.

[Shodan]

@gonzomax

Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free.

Do you have a cite for this?

Regards,
Shodan

[gonzomax]

@Sage_Rat

I’ll match Gonzo’s loony blogs with a government study:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf

That drug companies also have to toy about with patents on quasi-new medications is also a factor of the basic problem. It’s the only way they can stay in business.

Note that the PDF doesn’t paint the Pharmaceutical industry as a bunch of great and wonderful innovators, it just gives a practical and accurate overview of where things stand and why.

Only way they can stay in business? They are making billions. they are not on the edge of going under. They are powerful enough to be as corrupt as their imagination will allow.
Disclaimer. Of course don’t believe this if you are pregnant, plan on becoming pregnant, know anybody who was pregnant or don’t mind going blind.

Elan Pharmaceuticals Faces $97M Fine After Pleading Guilty to Off-Label...

For pharm this is just business.

[Voyager]

@pkbites

So my Mustang GT is just like my Vitara 4x4?
BULLSHIT!!!

I challenge you to prove that in the next snowstorm.

I live in the Bay Area, so that might take quite a while. Even when I lived where there was snow, my cheap old Saturn with traction control and snow tires did just fine.
Now, I’m quite aware that some people think expensive cars are somehow different than cheaper cars, but both get you places. Perhaps you’d pay more for a pill in designer colors?

This crap is about class warfare. It pisses you off that some privately funded scientists/chemists discovered some medications for something and dare to want to make a buck (in a free country) for their work, instead of giving it away.

Kumbaya Lord, Kumbaya! Fuck that shit!

Actually, if they did away with the money they spent on advertising, they might have more for scientists, who in this case contribute a lot more to society than ad men designing scary commercials about toenail fungus. Some ads are useful - just not these. Big Pharma these days seems to have a problem innovating, and get a lot of their new drugs by buying startups. And I have no problems with them being private. NIH is good for funding highly risky research, and they are good in making the results practical.

Now you can wipe the spittle off your chin and stop assuming I believe in things I don’t.

[Voyager]

@John_Mace

Get back to me when we live in a “just” world. And why should the drug a doctor gives a patient be “independent of TV”? I’m not sure what that means exactly, but it isn’t like TV is inherently evil or anything.

In short, I reject your premises, so your conclusions aren’t valid.

But sure, some drug companies try to “invent” new diseases, but so what? All companies try to create some demand for their products that certain people are going to say is unnecessary. But in a free society, we let individuals decide what they need or don’t need.

You have a problem with making the world just a little bit more just? I’m not against advertising at all. It can inform people, and build demand for some goods which helps the economy. But no one ever benefited from taking a pill they didn’t need. Now it is a good thing to advertise about symptoms of diseases to get people to the doctor when they need to go - but those ads are mostly PSAs, since the drug companies only advertise for high profit items.
As for the individual deciding - first, having the individual demand high cost non-generics increases the cost of healthcare, which hurts us all. Second, prescription drugs are all about the individual not being allowed to decide for himself. Third, you have never seemed to me to be the kind of libertarian who wants to abolish the FDA because any old person can read the medical literature and make these decisions for himself. That’s another way in which we don’t allow people full liberty in making medical decisions.

[John_Mace]

@shiftless

Those of you who feel like drug companies should be allowed to advertise all they want, how do you feel about the fact that the general public is restricted, by law, in their access to those products? I mean, if we don’t need a nanny state then we don’t need a nanny state.

Before we go there, it should be noted that there is a huge difference between the government controlling a substance because it might be dangerous if used incorrectly and the government controlling your access to information about the substance. There is no direct harm to the individual because he has access to advertising information-- he still has to go thru a doctor to get the actual drug.

[Voyager]

@gonzomax

Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free. They make a zillion dollars off of the popular ones and then can make minor changed to extend the patent a lot longer.We rush them through to market because if pharms enormous lobbying pressure. Their greed has harmed and killed Americans.
Pharmaceutical companies that get convicted of crimes are still allowed to do business with the U.S. government? How does that work? | Psych Crime Reporter

Not quite true, and I’m on your side. There is a big difference between fundamental research on a drug (not free, paid for by NIH with a good investment of our tax dollars) and running the studies that will make the new drug manufacturable and prove that it is safe.

[even_sven]

@Sage_Rat

Major pharmaceutical companies are screwed in the US.

Yeah, they barely make profits at all.

If it’s such a sucker’s game, why is anyone doing it?

[TriPolar]

While I have no problem with the reasonable regulation of advertising for prescription medications, I agree with John Mace that I have a right to find out on my own what medications are available, and pharmaceutical companies should not be restrained from informing me.

[pkbites]

@shiftless

Those of you who feel like drug companies should be allowed to advertise all they want, how do you feel about the fact that the general public is restricted, by law, in their access to those products?

Some members of the public are restricted from other products that are free to advertise. Should we ban ads for cars and beer? Should the Gander Mountain flyer that comes in the paper be banned because kids can’t buy the rifles advertised?

And if the pharm companies want to spend their profits on commercials rather than hire new chemists, that’s their business, not anyone elses.

[The_Universe_Lashes_Out]

@John_Mace

Before we go there, it should be noted that there is a huge difference between the government controlling a substance because it might be dangerous if used incorrectly and the government controlling your access to information about the substance. There is no direct harm to the individual because he has access to advertising information-- he still has to go thru a doctor to get the actual drug.

I don’t know why you think that advertising a prescription drug counts as “information” in any meaningful way. When a government bans that type of advertising, they are not restricting anyone’s access to information about drugs. They are restricting propaganda designed to make people think they need a drug.

[shiftless]

@John_Mace

Before we go there, it should be noted that there is a huge difference between the government controlling a substance because it might be dangerous if used incorrectly and the government controlling your access to information about the substance. There is no direct harm to the individual because he has access to advertising information-- he still has to go thru a doctor to get the actual drug.

I don’t think anyone is talking about the government controlling information. We are talking about whether the government should have a hand in the misinformation, or, to be charitable, one-sided information, that the drug companies present. The exact same government that controls public access to those drugs. I don’t see how you reconcile the ideas that we are both incompetent to choose our own drugs and yet fully competent to recommend drugs based on what we see on TV. Does anyone here really believe that the ads are only meant to call doctors’ attention to a useful drug they happened to overlook?

[John_Mace]

@The_Universe_Lashes_Out

I don’t know why you think that advertising a prescription drug counts as “information” in any meaningful way. When a government bans that type of advertising, they are not restricting anyone’s access to information about drugs. They are restricting propaganda designed to make people think they need a drug.

These types of ads are regulated as to content. If they are making false claims, then take these guys to court and have the ads removed.

If it’s your contention that there is no useful information these ads, then I’ll need to see some evidence of that.

[Annie-Xmas]

First of all, pharmaceutical “drugs” are never advertised. The word DRUG is never used in any commercial ever. It’s always “medicine.” I’ve had doctors tell me “That’s not a drug, it’s medicine.”

[Blaster_Master]

There’s a lot of problems with this situation, but I don’t think that the solution to the problem is a ban or restriction on advertising. The pharmaceutical companies need to shape up some, but so do the patients and the doctors.

As a patient, I have a duty to myself to be informed about my medical condition. If I have a particular condition, I should occassionally read up on recent studies about it, and see what treatment options there are out there. Obviously, self-diagnosis is dangerous, but learning a little bit about stuff so that I can ask someone who is qualified to make those sorts of decisions. The harm isn’t with the information, its what we do with the information. Going in and double checking that my doctor has heard about it and weighed it as a treatment option is reasonable; going in and demanding the pill is dumb and should be shot down.

Doctors need to stay up to date, but expecting them to stay up to date on every medication for every condition is ridiculous. Perhaps a he subscribes to journals A, B, C, and D, but the new study for a condition I have was published in journal E. Is he irrepsonsible for not knowing about it, particularly if it’s relatively recent? What if it is in a journal to which he subscribes, but he didn’t exactly scour the article with a particular patient in mind. Is he irresponsible for not immediately thinking that new treatment X is perfect of me? The whole idea would be that the patient says “hey doctor, I heard about this new treatment for my condition, what do you think?” And he can either provide an immediately informed response, because he knows, or maybe he hadn’t heard about it or hadn’t researched it yet, and he can read up on it, and then make an informed decision. The other problem is, of course, doctors getting freebies and kickbacks for subscribing, but that’s more of an ethics thing, and when you hear about it, you should never see that doctor again.

For pharmaceuiticals, putting out ads for new medicines makes sense. There’s plenty of stuff I see advertised on television that obviously isn’t something the general public is going to be interested in. Their goal, however, should be product awareness, as in, there’s a need drug that can be used to treat certain conditions; ask your doctor about it. If I’m too stupid to do a little research on it first, it’s my fault. If my doctor is a moron and just gives it to me because I asked for it, or because he gets a kickback, he’s a bad doctor.

What really pisses me off though are the ads that try to convince me I have a condition, describing symptoms and then telling me about a magic pill. Or showing a generic commercial that doesn’t really tell me what a pill is supposed to be for, but tells me about how awesome it is. The thing is, if it’s something that’s serious enough that I need to be on regular medication for it, I’ve probably already been to the doctor for it and I don’t need you to convince me to do so. I do think these types are particularly unethical, but I’m not really sure what can or should be done about them without affecting the types that I think are legitimate.
Either way, it’s just information, and I don’t want the government restricting my access to it, even though I have zero personal interest in any of the medications I see advertised on TV.

[BigT]

You guys are making a fallacious argument. Drug prices are not high to subsidize advertizing. They are high because people will pay that much.

And I would argue that advertising is a right. It’s freedom of the press. If a media company wants to run an ad, they can. There are some cases in which the right is restricted, but I cannot think of one that would apply to prescription drugs.

Combine that with the fact that it’s not going to lower prices, and I don’t see the point in outlawing it.

ETA: Heck, decreasing the number of users may make prices go up, as often happens when demand decreases.

[Voyager]

@BigT

ETA: Heck, decreasing the number of users may make prices go up, as often happens when demand decreases.

Only in monopoly situations. If the water company sees demand decreasing because of conservation, it raises the price. If a computer maker sees demand decreasing, do you think they raise the price in response?

Do you agree or disagree that it was a good idea to ban cigarette ads on TV. I saw a bunch as a kid, and I have a DVD with lots of them. They stopped making health claims sometime during the '50s, but still made lifestyle claims, just as the drug companies do today.

[Voyager]

@TriPolar

While I have no problem with the reasonable regulation of advertising for prescription medications, I agree with John Mace that I have a right to find out on my own what medications are available, and pharmaceutical companies should not be restrained from informing me.

The only thing restricted would be one minute commercials, half of which consists of someone reading out a list of side effects while a couple romps on the beach. No one would restrict sponsored search results, say.

I wonder how many people are scared off investigating a drug which could actually help by the side effect list. If I were a drug company, I’d almost prefer directing my potential customers to a web site where the side effect listing is put into the proper context.

[salinqmind]

@An_Arky

That’s all well and good, but they should also stop the “hot” pharm saleswomen from waltzing into my doctor’s office and whoring their wares while I’m waiting for my appointment, as well.

Oh, I had one, observing, in the exam room. (The doctor did ask if I minded, and as the exam was for a sore throat and not a pelvic, I said, sure, she can stay if she isn’t afraid of possibly catching a strep infection.) And I’ve heard a rumour from people I know who sell medical equipment, of being invited in to watch an operation! Whether it was in the viewing section or actually in the OR is unclear.

Also, I read that one of the things that most ticks off a doctor is being handed a sheaf of papers copied off the internet by a patient. I would imagine this includes information about the latest pill. The crabby harrassed PHP drone I see would hardly appreciate it, much less take the time to read the information before rendering a decision.