Re: It's a good thing? Pharmaceutical ads on TV?

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 13:27:57 +0000, Bob Travis wrote:

> First off this is a gripe because I have come to the conclusion TV ads for
> pharmacy products are only geared toward the medical industry itself, i.e.
> meant for the physician watching, not the patient, despite what the ad hype
> says. Besides do they really think the average person can contemplate the
> long list of possible side effects the typical TV ad spews forth in 15 to 30
> seconds?

I would disagree. They are strictly geared toward the end user. What is a
physician or other medical professional going to gain from a commercial
showing a luminescent butterfly, for example?

No, they don't expect anyone to fully comprehend the list of side effects.
It's a legal requirement, nothing more. They wouldn't be in the ads at
all if they didn't have to be. That's why some ads don't even mention the
drug name. They just say to ask your doctor or call for more info. That
way they don't have to mention possible side effects, but they also don't
get to mention the name of the drug.

> I consider my hearing excellent but I think if a particular drug really
> sounded good enough to recommend to my physician I'd have to look the
> drug up on the web first because they read the side effects too quickly
> for at least 60% of those watching the ad. `Just my opinion -- maybe my
> comprehension skills aren't as good as my WAIS results suggest they
> should be.

Again, they aren't meant to be fully understood. Also, a frighteningly
large number of people don't take any time to learn about their health or
prescriptions they may want or need.

> What I really think is TV commercials advertising Rx drugs strive to
> create an assumption that it is proper to suggest to your physician that
> a particular drug is what you need (despite all you have to go on is a
> TV ad -- unless you really understand your medical records, can use
> PubMed efficiently to research the results of clinical trials with a new
> medication, and can use the web well enough to check for possible
> drug/food interactions to which you might be susceptible).
>
> Doing so, suggesting a product is exactly what you need, puts your
> physician in the position of having to explain to you why it is right
> for you or why it isn't. If you trust the doctor enough to pay big bucks
> to watch after your health, why not let them also be the ones to
> recommend what medicine you should take -- and if you already trust them
> so little as to believe they would fall for the ploys of pharm reps,
> like a free vacation for every so many scripts written for their
> product, shouldn't you consider changing docs to one you can trust
> further than you can throw him (or her)?
>
> If you disagree with this logic then what's wrong with me calling every
> MD in my tri-state area by phone until I can find one willing to
> prescribe dex/benz/or methedrine to help cope with the time adjustments
> shift workers have to make, or one who will prescribe morphine for my
> bad knee because I find it's more effective than aspirin or Tylenol?
>
> Or why doesn't the powerful drug lobby operate to make scripts
> unnecessary altogether? Then we could buy anything we see on TV, read
> about in a magazine, or hear about from a friend (or in rare cases, a
> doctor).

You're kidding, right? They all but own the FDA as it is. Prices are
set with the intention of 3rd party payors picking up the tab. They would
have to drop prices should everything be made OTC. Then there are the
myriad of safety and liability issues and a sue-happy public.

> Or just keep on tempting us with ads,
>
> bust us if we steal something no one will prescribe for us,

You're making a hell of a jump here. From blaming ads for tainting
medical decisions, to blaming ads for causing you to steal morphine for
your bad knee. Never seen anyone break in to steal Singulair (who had
frequently run DTC ads), nor have I ever seen a DTC ad for
morphine/oxycodone/fentanyl/etc (they may be out there, but I never have
seen any).

> and help keep the wheels of "justice," "law enforcement." and other
> capitalist establishments well greased

Holy cow, since when is LE a "capitalist establishment"? Your post started
out on the right track, I think, but quickly degraded into some sort of
rather illogical rant...

> with the bucks we have to pay in taxes, fines, and other penalties
>
> just because TV said, "this is probably what you need,"
>
> but you're poor and stupid
>
> so suck big ones if the system doesn't work for you as well as it does
> for those who can earn a good living, buy personal care attendants
> lavish gifts for holidays and birthdays, and maybe make regular
> donations to the policemen's ball charity every year as well.
>
> Then you can have your cake and eat it too (or at least take two, chug
> with water, and switch to the next panacea you see on TV if the last one
> didm't do the trick.

.