34 ms·

Ick! This reinforces my belief that direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs should be illegal.

by EvanAnderson 9y ago

lostlogin 9y ago
It is nearly everywhere. New Zealand, USA and Brazil allow it.
- Retric 9y ago
  That's not a long list of countries.
  - losteric 9y ago
    I assume they meant direct-to-consumer advertising is everywhere.
    - masklinn 9y ago
      That's what Retric understood, but the opposite of what lostlogin meant.
  - valleyer 9y ago
    It's illegal nearly everywhere.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Yea, I mean if it's only 3 out of ~194 that's a short list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising adds Hong Kong, and that's it.
- abraae 9y ago
  If its allowed in NZ, its rare, and limited to headache medicince, asthma remedies and the like. I'm always astonised when I'm in the US at the medical ads on TV. It seems bizarre that companies target advertising at the consumer for products that should really be selected on their behalf by a medical professional. And those disclaimer/warning crack me up.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Are you saying the ideal state is when physicians are the sole keepers of all medical knowledge? Patients couldn't possibly play a role in their own health?
    - abraae 9y ago
      No, I didn't say either of those things.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      There is plenty of good evidence on the downsides of direct to consumer drug advertising and the link I provided to the parent covers the issues well. No one thinks patients shouldn’t be informed, it’s how they get informed that matters.
    - scott_karana 9y ago
      Advertising is the only source of medical knowledge? News to me. ;-)
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    It’s not rare at all and it’s for a lot more than just the medications described. I can recall erectile dysfunction drugs, anti depressants, pains medications and other miscellaneous drugs. The “Family Health Diary” segment of TV was a particularly perverse one. This article below (which is long) covers the issues well. https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no-1401/6278 https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/...
    - abraae 9y ago
      That's amazing, I need to watch TV more. Have never seen any of those.
hawkice 9y ago
I'm more concerned people dragoon their doctors based on some half-incoherent Super Bowl ad. They can't possibly be convinced that's ideal for their health in most cases, but I think health insurance hides the costs of wasting your doctor's time. (Which is to say, I wouldn't be concerned about making it illegal if it stopped being so effective.)
- cbanek 9y ago
  I've heard this happens a lot. Plus, if the person is really adamant about getting whatever drug, the doctor knows that it's possible the patient will find a new doctor to prescribe it anyway.
  - triangleman 9y ago
    Sure but medicine is a profession and doctors usually don't suffer when they lose a patient to a "competitor", so they shouldn't typically feel pressured to give a patient whatever drug they want.
    - cbanek 9y ago
      I've heard that and brought that up to a doctor friend of mine at the time, and they told me that they would rather give the prescription if it won't harm the person, because it's likely the patient will go to a questionable doctor / online pharmacy and the risk might be less just to comply.
- semperdark 9y ago
  In my experience a lot of doctors are just happy when patients take real interest in their own health, even if that particular drug isn't the best choice. Jaded by too many noncompliant patients.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  That's why they advertise on Superbowl, TV shows and everywhere else. To make people think they have something and their pill can make it go away. Doctor Johnson doesn't prescribe it, another one will. Otherwise they'd only target doctors, in their offices, trade mags and all. http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-america-is-over-medicated-2012-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-america-is-over-m...
robotresearcher 9y ago
As it is in many if not most G7 countries.
refurb 9y ago
Really? The FDA did a study with physicians and they thought it was quite useful![1] - Many physicians thought that DTC ads made their patients more involved in their health care. - The study demonstrated that when a patient asked about a specific drug, 88 percent of the time they had the condition that the drug treated. Of course the study showed there were problems, but it was the ads had many more positive effects than negative! [1]https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143562.htm https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm14356...
- shakna 9y ago
  That's not the story I got from that study. At all. * 58% of respondents "agreed strongly that DTC ads make the drugs seem better than they really are" * 78% of physicians believed patients understood possible benefits, however, only 40% believe patients understood the risks involved. * 75% of "physicians surveyed believed that DTC ads cause patients to think that the drug works better than it does" * "physicians felt some pressure to prescribe something when patients mentioned DTC ads." So, patients are getting more involved and asking questions, which is great, but they don't understand the risks involved, the patient misrepresents how well the drug is working for them, and the physician feels pressure to give them what they ask for. That sort of bias is a problem, especially with on-going therapy. If a patient is being misled by DTC ads about how well they are being treated, they can't raise questions that would allow them to get even better treatment. If a physician is feeling pressured to give a drug when asked, they can't try other, sometimes more effective, therapies.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Sure the patients don't understand the risks, that's what the doctor is there to explain. I guess my point is that most people see DTC ads as completely useless and harmful overall. The study seems to suggest there are a lot of positive benefits. One point I didn't copy paste showed that of the 80% of patient who actually had the condition, 5% were previously undiagnosed! That means a drug ad potentially saved thei life if it was a serious disease!
    - 9y ago
valuearb 9y ago
As disgusting as this story is, freedom of speech isn't a freedom if it magically disappears because a collection of people say it instead of a single person. I'd much rather have a raucous marketplace of ideas and opinions that let people choose for themselves, over having the government make their medical decisions. For example, thousands of deaths have been attributed to the tough drug approval requirements in the US. How would you feel if you had a terminal condition and your government didn't allow you to even know of a possible treatment, or the choice of taking the risk that the treatment won't work?
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  Let's not confuse the issue by taking about freedom of speech, at least without acknowledging that the rules for commercial speech have always been different (and much stricter). I don't really know anyone who thinks "Remember the good old days when cigarette ads were on TV?" (that was a thing). Prescription ads on TV are a relatively recent thing anyway (really 1995 in the US), one in which a powerful lobbying group used their money and influence to help write the rules.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    The US Constitution does not treat "commercial speech" any differently than personal speech. The US Supreme court did, and it's rulings on the subject are politically biased and clearly wrong (the first made while under threat of court packing by FDR). US Court of Appeals judge Alex Kozinski stated, in regard to the 1942 ruling, "the Supreme Court plucked the commercial speech doctrine out of thin air" Many people remember the good old days when individual rights and limits on the federal government were enforced closer to US Constitutional requirements.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  How would you feel if your doctor gave you thalidomide to treat anxiety, and you ended up with a deformed baby as a result, because the raucous marketplace cared more about moving drugs than patient safety?
hiyer 9y ago
It is illegal in India. As a result, in all my life here I cannot recall seeing ads for any medicine stronger than aspirin.
- markdown 9y ago
  AFAIK illegal everywhere in the world except USA and oddly, New Zealand.

Ick! This reinforces my belief that direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs should be illegal.

lostlogin 9y ago

It is nearly everywhere. New Zealand, USA and Brazil allow it.

Retric 9y ago
That's not a long list of countries.
- losteric 9y ago
  I assume they meant direct-to-consumer advertising is everywhere.
  - masklinn 9y ago
    That's what Retric understood, but the opposite of what lostlogin meant.
- valleyer 9y ago
  It's illegal nearly everywhere.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Yea, I mean if it's only 3 out of ~194 that's a short list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising adds Hong Kong, and that's it.
abraae 9y ago
If its allowed in NZ, its rare, and limited to headache medicince, asthma remedies and the like. I'm always astonised when I'm in the US at the medical ads on TV. It seems bizarre that companies target advertising at the consumer for products that should really be selected on their behalf by a medical professional. And those disclaimer/warning crack me up.
- refurb 9y ago
  Are you saying the ideal state is when physicians are the sole keepers of all medical knowledge? Patients couldn't possibly play a role in their own health?
  - abraae 9y ago
    No, I didn't say either of those things.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    There is plenty of good evidence on the downsides of direct to consumer drug advertising and the link I provided to the parent covers the issues well. No one thinks patients shouldn’t be informed, it’s how they get informed that matters.
  - scott_karana 9y ago
    Advertising is the only source of medical knowledge? News to me. ;-)
- lostlogin 9y ago
  It’s not rare at all and it’s for a lot more than just the medications described. I can recall erectile dysfunction drugs, anti depressants, pains medications and other miscellaneous drugs. The “Family Health Diary” segment of TV was a particularly perverse one. This article below (which is long) covers the issues well. https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no-1401/6278 https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/...
  - abraae 9y ago
    That's amazing, I need to watch TV more. Have never seen any of those.

hawkice 9y ago

I'm more concerned people dragoon their doctors based on some half-incoherent Super Bowl ad. They can't possibly be convinced that's ideal for their health in most cases, but I think health insurance hides the costs of wasting your doctor's time. (Which is to say, I wouldn't be concerned about making it illegal if it stopped being so effective.)

cbanek 9y ago
I've heard this happens a lot. Plus, if the person is really adamant about getting whatever drug, the doctor knows that it's possible the patient will find a new doctor to prescribe it anyway.
- triangleman 9y ago
  Sure but medicine is a profession and doctors usually don't suffer when they lose a patient to a "competitor", so they shouldn't typically feel pressured to give a patient whatever drug they want.
  - cbanek 9y ago
    I've heard that and brought that up to a doctor friend of mine at the time, and they told me that they would rather give the prescription if it won't harm the person, because it's likely the patient will go to a questionable doctor / online pharmacy and the risk might be less just to comply.
semperdark 9y ago
In my experience a lot of doctors are just happy when patients take real interest in their own health, even if that particular drug isn't the best choice. Jaded by too many noncompliant patients.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
That's why they advertise on Superbowl, TV shows and everywhere else. To make people think they have something and their pill can make it go away. Doctor Johnson doesn't prescribe it, another one will. Otherwise they'd only target doctors, in their offices, trade mags and all. http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-america-is-over-medicated-2012-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-america-is-over-m...

robotresearcher 9y ago

As it is in many if not most G7 countries.

refurb 9y ago

Really? The FDA did a study with physicians and they thought it was quite useful![1] - Many physicians thought that DTC ads made their patients more involved in their health care. - The study demonstrated that when a patient asked about a specific drug, 88 percent of the time they had the condition that the drug treated. Of course the study showed there were problems, but it was the ads had many more positive effects than negative! [1]https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143562.htm https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm14356...

shakna 9y ago
That's not the story I got from that study. At all. * 58% of respondents "agreed strongly that DTC ads make the drugs seem better than they really are" * 78% of physicians believed patients understood possible benefits, however, only 40% believe patients understood the risks involved. * 75% of "physicians surveyed believed that DTC ads cause patients to think that the drug works better than it does" * "physicians felt some pressure to prescribe something when patients mentioned DTC ads." So, patients are getting more involved and asking questions, which is great, but they don't understand the risks involved, the patient misrepresents how well the drug is working for them, and the physician feels pressure to give them what they ask for. That sort of bias is a problem, especially with on-going therapy. If a patient is being misled by DTC ads about how well they are being treated, they can't raise questions that would allow them to get even better treatment. If a physician is feeling pressured to give a drug when asked, they can't try other, sometimes more effective, therapies.
- refurb 9y ago
  Sure the patients don't understand the risks, that's what the doctor is there to explain. I guess my point is that most people see DTC ads as completely useless and harmful overall. The study seems to suggest there are a lot of positive benefits. One point I didn't copy paste showed that of the 80% of patient who actually had the condition, 5% were previously undiagnosed! That means a drug ad potentially saved thei life if it was a serious disease!
  - 9y ago

valuearb 9y ago

As disgusting as this story is, freedom of speech isn't a freedom if it magically disappears because a collection of people say it instead of a single person. I'd much rather have a raucous marketplace of ideas and opinions that let people choose for themselves, over having the government make their medical decisions. For example, thousands of deaths have been attributed to the tough drug approval requirements in the US. How would you feel if you had a terminal condition and your government didn't allow you to even know of a possible treatment, or the choice of taking the risk that the treatment won't work?

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
Let's not confuse the issue by taking about freedom of speech, at least without acknowledging that the rules for commercial speech have always been different (and much stricter). I don't really know anyone who thinks "Remember the good old days when cigarette ads were on TV?" (that was a thing). Prescription ads on TV are a relatively recent thing anyway (really 1995 in the US), one in which a powerful lobbying group used their money and influence to help write the rules.
- valuearb 9y ago
  The US Constitution does not treat "commercial speech" any differently than personal speech. The US Supreme court did, and it's rulings on the subject are politically biased and clearly wrong (the first made while under threat of court packing by FDR). US Court of Appeals judge Alex Kozinski stated, in regard to the 1942 ruling, "the Supreme Court plucked the commercial speech doctrine out of thin air" Many people remember the good old days when individual rights and limits on the federal government were enforced closer to US Constitutional requirements.
Spooky23 9y ago
How would you feel if your doctor gave you thalidomide to treat anxiety, and you ended up with a deformed baby as a result, because the raucous marketplace cared more about moving drugs than patient safety?

hiyer 9y ago

It is illegal in India. As a result, in all my life here I cannot recall seeing ads for any medicine stronger than aspirin.

markdown 9y ago
AFAIK illegal everywhere in the world except USA and oddly, New Zealand.