It’s a very general question, but my actual question is a bit longer and I didn’t wish to fill up the entire front page of GD with it.
Should drug companies be allowed to advertise when they don’t explain in the commercial or in print what the product does?
I’m a big proponent of the 1st amendment but I don’t believe they should be able to. I believe that the information conveyed in the advertisement is of minimal value and it causes more harm than good.
For the record, I agree with the 1975 decision in Virginia Citizens Consumer Council where the Supreme Court ruled that pharmacies have the right to advertise. I agree that businesses have the right to conduct their business and I agree that consumers have the right to an informed choice.
But when the ONLY information provided in the advertisement is the name of the product and “ask your doctor” it does no one any good.
It ties up resources. Doctors have a finite amount of time to work with patients and responding to every patient with what every product advertised does would eat up a large portion of that time.
It provides no useful information. No one still knows what the drug does. We’re not talking about a teaser ad for the new 2 for 1 special down at McDonald’s. It’s medication and, used incorrectly, it is dangerous.
It makes people paranoid. “What is Cervitex? Is it right for me? Do I have a problem?”
I have enough of a problem with the regular drug ads where they list off rectal bleeding as a side effect, but I’m letting that go. At least they tell you that it stops ear wax build-up so if you have that problem, you can talk to your doctor about it. But telling the population as a whole to “ask your doctor” about every drug out there does no one any good.
Well, actually, almost all the print ads I’ve seen in magazines have a complete rundown on the next page, and even television ads list possible side-effects, so what aren’t they telling us?
I’ll just chuckle quietly to myself.
Got any evidence to support that advertised drugs are being mis-used because of that advertising? Even older medications that are not frequently advertised are misused.
So… should they refuse to answer questions then? Truth be told, if any doctor dismissed questions of mine that I thought were legitimate, I’d find myself another doctor, stat.
The advertisements advise potential patients to consult their doctors for more info. That seems perfectly straightforward to me. If the doctor is incompetent or the patient can’t follow a prescription, how is that the fault of the drug companies?
Are you paranoid? If not, then why assume others are stupid?
That’s mighty white of you. Are you promoting the end of drug commercials or just icky drug commercials?
I’ve never seen a drug advertisement on television or in print that was so vague that I couldn’t figure out what the intended effect was.
Your proposed limitation of the First Amendment makes no sense and on some level it’s almost offensive: you’re assuming that some information is too dangerous for the stupid panicky paranoid masses to handle, not that the information is deceptive.
Bryan Ekers, perhaps it’s different in Canada, I don’t know. In America, drug companies have two possibilities: tell what the drug is, what it does, and then list off the side effects, or DON’T tell what the drug does and merely state “ask your doctor for information.”
The second advertisement is what I’m complaining about.
That’s not the type of ad he’s talking about, though they do exist. I believe he has ads that are like this in mind:
Scene opens on blue skies, with some kites flying in the air. A few butterflies skirt by. A grandmother and small child laugh as they try to avoid hitting the butterflies with a kite. A couple smiles at each other as they try to hold a coat above their heads to avoid being rained on. CGI flowers scatter across the screen. A homeless man is quitely kicked to death in an alley. <voice over> Gerfrogenex. Ask a Doctor if it’s right for you.
No side effects, no uses for the drug, no context clues…it could be a drug for arthritis or an erectile dysfunction cure for all you know from watching the commercial.
I don’t agree that they shouldn’t be allowed, but I don’t think that they’re making anyone money, either. I doubt that I’m atypical in that I’m never going to ask a doctor if any of the mystery drugs are right for me, so besides the niche hypochondriac market, I don’t think they’re getting many new users.
As far as whether or not they do any good… hard to say. I’m a curious sort, and if I ever went to a doctor, I would ask what Gerfrogenex does. As it stands, I just have my wife ask when she goes. I can see someone like me asking about something at random, and actually finding out that the drug may be of use to them, in which case: Two points for the drug company.
I predict if they don’t do any good, then you won’t see them around much longer. Then again, I can’t imagine those nasty-ass Carl’s Jr. commercials where the people drip ketchup and mustard and chili all over themselves and then lick it off the table, or whatever, actually sell burgers, and yet they refuse to go away. So who knows?
Jeff
You ever heard of the peppercorn theory of contract? Briefly, it states that when one person contracts with another to exchange something for consideration (with full consent and without duress or any other type of unconscionability), courts should not break the contract simply because the court feels that the consideration was not enough, even if the consideration were but a peppercorn. The theory is that the person that exchanged the diamond ring for the peppercorn sure must’ve thought that the peppercorn had value, so who’s the court to say that it doesn’t?
The same analysis applies here. The drug companies sure seem to think that a commercial that only says the name of the product followed by “Ask your doctor” has value, so who are we to say it doesn’t? If you are correct and these commercials don’t do the drug companies any good, then just sit on back and relax, they’ll be gone shortly.
Also, I don’t see the merit in any argument you may be making that these ads hurt patients or their doctors. (If your argument is only that the ads don’t do doctors or patients any good, then your argument simply doesn’t matter if the ads do drug companies somoe good).
If a man asks his doctor, “So, what’s the deal with this Vagi-clean stuff, should I take it,” and the doctor says “No, dude, that’s only for folks with vaginas,” then what’s the harm? It took an extra five seconds to clear that up, and that’s what going to a doctor is all about (to get health information from a professional who knows your history and needs (and whether or not you have a vagina (and whether or not it needs a cleaning))).
TaxGuy, yes, I’ve heard of the peppercorn theory. Coincidently, I referenced it earlier today in a post in the pit.
I don’t necessarily see any sort of contract being formed through the commercial. I understand your point, that if the drug companies think it to be valuable information they should be allowed to advertise, but I don’t agree with the end result. One doesn’t look at it through that vacuum of only the drug company’s perspective.
How does this affect patients? How does this affect doctors? Sure, when there’s a clear cut line of only women need drug X, it’s pretty easy to dismiss the concerns of a male patient. But this brings up two issues:
What if the issue isn’t clear cut? To properly explain it takes time. To properly test the person to determine if he needs the drug takes time. It runs up medical bills and wastes the doctor’s time all on a wild goose chase. But if you’re just looking at it from the drug company’s perspective, it wouldn’t matter, would it? None of these things concern you. You don’t lose money because doctors are upset or if bills are run up.
Don’t you think there’s something inherently wrong with an advertisement with such a blatant lack of information that a man can’t determine on his own whether a female’s medicine is necessary?
Yes, the message itself is only going to really affect the paranoid and the hypochondriacs. But it affects everyone in longer waits to see doctors and increased insurance premiums through unnecessary tests. It might be minor, it might only be a blip on the radar, but it’s there. It affects us all and that effect should outweigh the drug company’s right to convey a message which isn’t even a message at all!
Commercial speech has historically been granted less freedom than political speech.
One of the primary concerns is the message the advertiser wishes to present versus the interest the government has in regulating that message. In this particular scenario, we must question how valuable of information the name is versus the potential for harm it has.
My contention is that the advertisement’s upside isn’t worth its downside.
This line of reasoning doesn’t work on political speech. Yes, a protest may very well inconvenience a few drivers when roads are blocked. A letter to the editor can ruffle a few feathers. I’m right there with you when people wish to regulate those based upon inconvenience to a few. They’re not the same.
I do find their commercials incredily annoying (including the 6 seconds of what the terribly named product does followed by five minutes of side effects and the 10 seconds of terrible product name with no mention of what it does varieties) but they still have a right to peddle their swill as long as they ain’t lying.
If you’re wondering whether the ads work, consider the gigantic market share that Claritin has enjoyed over the other, equally effective H1-blockers (Allegra, Zyrtec) over the last several years, and how it correlates with their direct-to-consumer advertising.
I was always confused at the purpose for these ads, until I started thinking about a really bizarre campaign I started seeing for Procrit. Procrit is a synthetic erythropoietin that is given to people who aren’t making enough red blood cells–notably, patients in certain types of chemotherapy–to build them up. These were odd to me, because I couldn’t imagine that someone who needed this drug had to ask for it. However, I also realized that when I thought of this drug, I immediately thought of Epogen, which is another brand name for essentially the same drug. Procrit realized that doctors thought of Epogen first when they thought of synthetic erythropoietin, and they wanted their name associated with it. I have no doubt that it has bought them a good bit of market share.
I really don’t see why drug companies shouldn’t advertise, as long as we’re going to leave the drug-making to private businesses. The doctors, though, have to be strong about not letting the advertising steer our prescribing habits in poor directions. I have no problem with it if a doctor prescribes Claritin over Allegra because Claritin has advertised more, or because Claritin bought him a nice dinner–they work about the same, and they cost about the same*, so it doesn’t matter. Prescribing Claritin when Benadryl will do, however, is something we have to avoid.
Dr. J
This was true until Claritin went OTC just recently, I guess. I really need to update this analogy.
Pfft, I’d rather let the doctor and patient decide how to use their time, rather than create legislative prohibitions against “waste”, which not only step on first-amendment protections but are borderline intrusive in patient/doctor confidentiality.
Even in the worst-case-scenario as described in the op; a ten-second spot with orchestral music and rainbows and “Ask your doctor if Dimoxinil is right for you” might lead to the following shocking, shocking conversation:
Patient: So, Doc, what’s this “Dimoxinil” stuff?
Doctor: It keeps your brain from freezing.
P: Really? Do I need it?
D: No.