Do you believe that Rx drugs should be directly advertised to the lay public?

[NGinpa]

First off, see this article related to this advertising of Rx drug question and concerning Dr. Robert Jarvik's appearance in television ads for Lipitor!

Here is what I think. Drugs require a Rx because they are not always needed and can be dangerous if taken incorrectly or on an unwarranted basis. It is the health provider making these calls, so other than publc health messages, I see no good reason for drug companies to be advertsing a specific product to the public. As to foods, we all need food. If some types of foods can clearly be dangerous with regular accepted usage, that needs to be noted as part of advertising. When a substance requires a Rx because it is overly dangerous or not universally needed, then advertising is a different beast, IMO!

We have illegal drug pushing for the profit of the pushers, and we frown on this. Now we have legal drug pushing, but that makes it okay, except of
course now every kid believes he needs a Rx drug because they must be safe. From a social system point of view, we are creating a dependent public that thinks it needs drugs for everyday living, and that is a disservice to our country, especially when many of these drugs don't live up to their adds over time. That is another system flaw however!!

The best way of stressing or seeing this point would be to look how a national universal system would look at the beneftis or lack thereof of
drug advertsing when the drug costs were covered by all of us. Would Restless leg syndrome be a good thing to devise and push on all of us with our
limited resources, or would the money be better spent on preventive public health adds?

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. It was banned and the rules could still be strictly enforced n/t

[DissentIsPatriotic]

2. No, they should not. The US and New Zealand

are the only two countries that currently allow this practice. http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=528

[NGinpa]

4. Thanks for this nice link!

It will be useful to me.

[sam sarrha]

3. no

[SCantiGOP]

5. absolutely not

they spend as much on marketing as they do on R&D. My doctor said he had had women come in and ask for erectile dysfunction drugs, and men inquiring whether they should be taking a treatment for menopause. They should not be able to advertise or contribute to political action committees.

[supernova]

6. Actually they spend

more on marketing than they do on R&D.

But your point is still valid.

[Warpy]

7. They spend twice as much on advertising as on R&D.

and end up with huge sales pumped by hypochondriacs clamoring for the latest drug because the general symptoms described in the drug ad describe nearly everybody in the human population at one time or another.

The practice is completely unethical. Lay people are fully able to describe their symptoms to their doctors but they are not able to interpret those symptoms into a reliable diagnosis.

Advertising should be to prescribers, only.

[varkam]

8. Lol! I can't believe that article...

So what if Jarvik wasn't rowing? Is it really that big of an issue that we need congressional investigations into his role as Lipitor spokesperson? Good grief. Maybe I'm jaded, but I understand that television isn't reality and that we only see what the editors want us to see.

As for the question in the OP: no, I don't believe pharmaceutical companies should engage in direct-to-consumer advertising. It's driven up advertising dollars, which in turn has driven up drug prices.

[Celebration]

9. wasn't the real issue

That he said he was taking the stuff when he wasn't (at the time)? That......uh......err......gulp......is lying, if he said that.

The boat thing doesn't bother me. It is silly. Well all ads bother me, but the boat part by itself is not an issue with me.

[varkam]

10. I must've missed that part.

It's slimey, but I still don't think that requires a freaking act of congress to investigate it.

[Celebration]

13. it was in the original Guardian article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/08/pfizer.pharmaceuticals

I remember posting this then. Well, I didn't think the baseball/HGH stuff needed an investigation, given all the bigger problems that we have.

Maybe they are doing it because it makes good television, or they think it does.

This ad is pretty brazen, when they are using his name--yet almost nothing else is true--doesn't use Lipitor at the time the ad was shot, isn't really a doctor of medicine, though they imply that, and, not only isn't in the picture of the boat, doesn't care about anything athletic. If it were an actor, and people knew it, that would be fine. But they are capitalizing on his name.

There are probably some Democrats that would like to ban pharmaceutical ads. Economically, now everyone is dependent on this money. It would sink some industries to ban them. So you can count on that not happening.

I flipped through some mainstream magazines when I was at the acupuncturist's waiting room today. Every friggin' ad I saw was a pharmaceutical ad. And most were right next to an article about the same problem. It was pretty disgusting. People must be easily brainwashed. Sad, sad, sad.

[varkam]

14. I guess I'm just cynical.

Every time I see a television ad, I always assume they're lying as much as they possibly can within the letter of the law. Advertising has actually been a hobby of mine (not doing it, mind you, but studying it) and I'm familiar with all the tricks that they pull so I guess it doesn't really outrage me when I find out that (gasp!) advertisers are lying! That's what they're paid to do: lie as much as they can to sell you a product without getting in trouble.

I didn't know that Jarvik wasn't an MD, though. The ads definately do give that impression, and they contain all the classics - appeal to authority, appeals to emotion, weasel words (eg "can help" - which means it might not do jack shit either). and so on and so forth. I think though that a lot of these problems are endemic to advertising in general and not just limited to the realm of medicine - though I think the stakes are a bit higher in medicine than elsewhere.

Of course the ads won't be banned. There's a powerful pharm lobby, and there's no way in hell they'd let that happen. DTC advertising for medicine is an accepted fact of life these days, regardless of whether or not it's a good thing.

[supernova]

11. And pinched their R&D budgets

there's less research money to be had because of all the damn marketing, PR shit.

[varkam]

15. Well, obviously.

I'm not saying that pharmaceutical companies don't have a right to advertise their products, but the ways that they go about it are so costly that they're essentially passing the debt on to the consumers. IOW, the consumers are paying for the adverts themselves without signing on for it.

The way it's done now is a crock in my opinion, and it would be much better if they stuck to just courting docs as opposed to trying to convince everyone that they have the next great disease (PAD, RLS, etc).

[yy4me]

12. No, people pester their doctors for medicines they no nothing

about, quoting ads on TV. My daughter is a doctor and tells me it is a real pain when patients come in, quoting the TV. They may not know what is wrong with them but ask for certain medication that they saw advertised. Medicine advertising should be in trade magazines, not for a general public that does not know one thing from another. You pay for guidance and proper medication from your doctor as needed, you should not be influenced by the advertising agencies and drug companies that have nothing but their own interest at heart. The MD's are aware of what is available, the public does not know one pill from another.

[Ayesha]

16. Yes, but

Only in publications that are condition-specific, and not on TV. For example, chemotherapy drugs could be advertised in cancer magazines. I think it's important that people know what drugs are out there in case their doctors are giving older treatments because of pressure from HMOs, etc. For life-threatening conditions it is especially important.

IMO what we need most is a ban on further development of lifestyle drugs, such as erectile dysfunction, sleep aids, etc. We have 10 drugs to give a man a stiffie but my partner suffers daily from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and my stepmother is dying of ovarian cancer. If all that $ went to research on truly needed medicines, think how many lives could be saved and improved.

[NGinpa]

17. What if the advertisement is false or misleading

as has been the norm over the last 10 years or so. Who does that benefit?? One thing about older treatments, they tend to be proven! This entire advertising scheme to the lay public to me would be bad enough even with a good system of proof that these drugs actually worked and were safe, but our current system is corrupted, and there is not even good proof that they work and are safe. Therefore it is doubly bad!

[LeftishBrit]

18. No. In fact, it's against the law in the UK.

OTC medicines do get advertised to the public here; but not prescription drugs.

[area51]

19. No. (n/t)

[supernova]

20. I'm all for information being in the public domain

but, I don't think it should come in the form of marketing material. That's a sure fire way to misinform people, as is so evident here.

I think the info should just be very dry, factual, writing in everyday English, not medicalese. Neither promoting nor discounting a given treatment or medicine.

I think it would be much better to use the compendiums in the reference section of the library, for example. There are things like the Physician's desk reference, which offer good basic information and not enough people know about those kinds of tools, compared to how many people can recite the cyalis slogan. :crazy:

[Heddi]

21. No, I don't think so

NOt only because the ads are misleading, and not only because there are generally cheaper, older, and more effective drugs to treat whatever the condition is, but also people say "Hey, *MY* legs get tingly at night...*I* Must have RLS".

RLS is very real, and I have many patients who legitimately have it. And they are effectively treated with gabapentin /neurontin. But now people whose leg goes to sleep when they sit funny suddenly think THEY have RLS, and begin to pester their MD's and nurses about these treatments for conditions they don't have.

Doing an admit assessment on a patient who vests too much trust and energy in these pharmaceutical ads is hell.

"Do you have any neurological disorders like stroke, or seizure"

"Well, no, but I think I have RLS"

"Were you ever diagnosed with RLS"

"No, but my legs get tingly sometimes if I sit too long"

"So your legs fall alseep, then?"

"Yes, but I think it's RLS, though"

oy vey.

Same with acid reflux and GERD...which is different from heartburn and indigestion. Holy shit, every person on the planet THINKS they have GERD (but they don't) or esophageal erosion...Thanks to these ads.

And it also gives people the impression that lifestyle changes do not have to be made if you take these meds. They think meds are a quick fix. That if they have X disorder that is complicated by poor diet and smoking, that taking X pill will allow them to smoke and eat deep-fried lard sandwiches while ridding themselves of X disorder. Of course this isn't true, but people dont' care about what's true, they care about what's easy.

I also think that such profane amounts of money are spent on pharmaceutical advertising and marketing and that those dollars could be better spent. while I do appreciate the plethora of pens and sticky notes and other junk we occasionally get from the pharmacetical reps that stop by my unit in the hospital (and I know that these reps get paid alot more than I do as a practicing RN), I really think that they could maybe decrease pen production by 3 million pens a year and put that money into something more worthwhile.

The best pens are for Neulesta, a drug for chemo patients with anemia. Man, those pens rock. I just have to say that in case you ever come across a Neulesta rep. Ask for the pens, and lots of them (and then send them to me). Those are hot commodity in my unit. You see a Neulesta pen and it's yours. YOu better engrave your name on that thing if you want to keep it :D