Re: health care reform I would make

Neil X <neilxk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:880f2e89-3c7f-4f95-8884-653dd9f9d15d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Aug 21, 10:30 am, The BorgMan <m...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Neil X <nei...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:8ca3e865-7e1d-48fc-beeb-856a07b4d9
43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



On Aug 20, 4:38 pm, The BorgMan <m...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Neil X <nei...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:9957b3f4-b41a-4f5f-a1d6-
a70404ec6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Aug 20, 3:27 pm, Garry the Island Boy <garry...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 16, 12:04 pm, "kpnn...@xxxxxxxxx" <kpnn...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

It hit me last night; I would ban pharma ads on tv. Let them
put
that
money into free samples and golf trips for doctors. I hate
that
***.

Kurt

I agree, shouldn't the doctor be telling me which drugs I need,
not me asking based on a subjective analysis?

The doctor needs to make the assessment about whether or not you
actually need the drug, but what's the problem with the patient
taking an interest in his own health treatment regimen?  Folks
consider doctors to be these unapproachably perfect creatures
who know everything, and the patient knows nothing.  But a
patient who takes a
n
interest in his own health care, instead of assuming that the
doctor will think of everything, is far more likely to get a
good result. For me, the bottom line is that half the doctors I
know are idiots, so if the patient doesn't pay attention, no one
is.  Pharm
a
ads facilitate the process.

I'd make an argument that if doctors are that poor, Pharma ads are
just as likely to facilitate the process of prescribing a wrong
(or unnecessary) drug, as a needed one.

I am certain that the ads will cause some folks to receive drugs
that they do not need and will not benefit from.  That's no reason
to take away the free speech rights of pharmaceutical companies.  

Corporations do not have free speech rights.

That is a
reason to do a better job of monitoring the performance of doctors,
who are the gateways to distribution of prescription drugs.

...and the performance of drug companies in using misleading ads and
lots and lots of high dollar perks to bribe doctors.


Ads are already carefully monitored to make certain they aren't
misleading. Just one recent example is the series of ads for a birth
control pill called "Yaz," where they spent the entire ad apologizing
for their previous ad and clarifying exactly what the drug is good
for. That's exactly the way the system is supposed to work.

No - the way the system is supposed to work the first ad would have never
aired to need to be apologized for.

...and I'd argue that the massive of application of antibiotics
(quite often at patient insistence) to things doctors KNOW won't
respond to antibiotics (like say, Virii) supports that point.

It supports the idea that lots of doctors are idiots?  Sure.  It
doesn't support your passion for a ban on pharma ads, though, and
it doesn't supply any evidence for your belief that ads result in
inappropriate over-medication.

Yes, it does.

It supports the idea that doctors are receptive to giving patients
drugs they don't need at patients insistence.


But you can't blame ads for over-presciption of antibiotics. There
*are no* antibiotics ads out there. Put the blame where it belongs,
on the doctors, not the ads.


It also supports the idea that advertising for drugs works,


No, it doesn't, since there **are no antibiotic ads.* How does the
logic keep escaping you? Your example is inaplicable to the current
discussion.


One single person getting a drug they should is inappropriate over-
medication.


yes, but in the example you cite, ads had nothing to do with it.

At any rate, if doctors are over-prescribing, blame the doctors.

I do.

....and the patient... and the pharmacist... and the culture that promotes
drugs as a solution to every problem... and the government that
inadequately regulates drugs...

There is LOTS of blame to go around

Knowledge is power. This paternalistic attitude that patients need to
be protected from information about the existence of pharmaceuticals
is offensive.

This paternalistic attitude that children need to be protected from
information about the existence of cigarettes is offensive too, right?

--
Aaron
.