5 ms·

You're being downvoted, but I upvoted because it is a legitimate concern. Information dissemination of medicine is a real issue. People act like "doctor knows

by umvi 6y ago

You're being downvoted, but I upvoted because it is a legitimate concern. Information dissemination of medicine is a real issue. People act like "doctor knows best; don't question their wisdom; they have their secret sources of information and you need not concern yourself with that"... yet I as a patient would like to know about all the options on the table available to me so I can do my own research. How do I know an old doctor isn't being biased toward old tried-and-true treatments, and new doctors aren't being biased toward shiny new bleeding-edge treatments? The same fallacies and biases that affect software developers affect doctors too. Doctors have limited time to think about and research ("debug") my condition, I have a lot of time to research ("debug") my condition. I'm not saying "advertising" is the correct solution to the information dissemination problem, but surely there could be an alternative solution like some kind of "medicine wiki" that would allow patients to discover medicines related to their conditions.

kube-system 6y ago
There is also information disparity in knowing when or if someone should to go to the doctor. I think Viagra is a good example of this -- it used to be common for people to assume ED was just a part of "getting old" and not a treatable condition that they even could talk to their doctor about.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Canada generally permits advertising that a drug exists to treat a specific condition so long as they don't say which drug it is -- or an ad for a drug, so long as they don't say what condition it treats. Even though both are technically illegal. It's product claim ads (Get Adalimumab today to treat your RA!) that are entirely unwelcome. [1] [1] https://www.cmaj.ca/content/169/5/425 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/169/5/425
- sukilot 6y ago
  Isn't "ED" a made up marketing term? We don't call having normal muscles "steroidal dysfunction".
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    See also "body odor" and "ring around the collar".
refurb 6y ago
The FDA has done plenty of research on direct to consumer (DTC) advertising for drugs.[1] It's not like they just said "yeah, that's cool, go ahead". In a report from 2015, the FDA found that there were benefits (shocking!) and drawbacks to DTC advertizing. Positives: - Most physicians agreed that because their patient saw a DTC ad, he or she asked thoughtful questions during the visit. - 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. And 80 percent of physicians believed their patients understood what condition the advertised drug treats. - Eighty-two percent responded either "very well" or "somewhat" when asked whether they believe that their patients understand that only a doctor can decide whether a drug is right for them. Negatives: - 65 percent believe DTC ads confuse patients about the relative risks and benefits of prescription drugs - Eight percent of physicians said they felt very pressured to prescribe the specific brand-name drug when asked. [1]https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/impact-direct-consumer-advertising https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/impact-...
- tmpz22 6y ago
  Thoughtful questions like "shouldn't I be using this drug"? Isn't that what the doctor is there for, particularly for a broad enough condition that it is targeted by ads?
  - refurb 6y ago
    Depends on the doctor and specialty. Family medicine covers a massive number of diseases that are treated by thousands of different drugs. Family doctors may, but not always, know about newly approved drugs.
    - tmpz22 6y ago
      Is there no database where they can lookup "drugs for x" as a quick refresher? Aren't they paid like 300k/yr?
arcticbull 6y ago
> People act like "doctor knows best; don't question their wisdom; they have their secret sources of information and you need not concern yourself with that"... yet I as a patient would like to know about all the options on the table available to me so I can do my own research. [edit] Nobody's making the case this information should be secret, just that it shouldn't be delivered directly to your face during episodes of Futurama. If you want to know what your options are by all means, pick up the pharmacopoeia. I made this argument recently -- in Canada, DTC advertising of prescription drugs is illegal, too. Has been for years. There's a reason physicians go through years and years of medical training, and its not least to be able to identify and manage side-effects, drug interactions and perform appropriate diagnostics. You spending 30 seconds watching an ad are not ready to self-prescribe Skyrizi or Oxycontin. Doing it wrong could lead to death, dependency, or in the case of self-prescribing antibiotics, community issues in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is something you need to have a minimum basis of knowledge to interpret and understand, and pharma companies are taking advantage of a knowledge gap to push drugs circumventing the professionals. It's people who know more than you taking advantage of the fact you don't to make a buck. The same argument could be made of drivers licenses, right? Well I know how to drive, so what business does a cop have telling me I need a license or to go to traffic school? The answer is simple: you can harm yourself or others if you don't know what you're doing, and the decision is made at the population level. Plus we're dreadful at self-administering medicine. 75% of American adults take some form of multivitamin or supplement. Most supplements are useless or harmful [1] and multivitamins are associated with an increase in all-cause mortality [2,3]. Let's leave the medicine to the medical professionals, yeah? [1] https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-scientific-evidence-for-nutritional-supplements-vizsweet/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-... [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/1105957 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl... [3] https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/152/2/149/87699 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/152/2/149/87699
- umvi 6y ago
  > Let's leave the medicine to the medical professionals, yeah? Partially disagree. Yes, they are a very important source of information, but ultimately it is your body and information should flow freely both directions so you (the patient) are empowered to make the best possible decision. Anecdote: Doctors are not omniscient. One time when my sister was in high school, she went to the doctor because she had a weird rash. My mom researched skin rash images online for hours and concluded it was shingles. When she brought it up to the doctor he laughed and said my sister was far too young for shingles and that it was probably just an allergic reaction to something she ate. He prescribed some topical ointment to see if it helped. Well, my mom didn't like that and took her to a different doctor who, unprompted, said: "wow, that looks like zoster (shingles)!"

by umvi 6y ago

kube-system 6y ago

There is also information disparity in knowing when or if someone should to go to the doctor. I think Viagra is a good example of this -- it used to be common for people to assume ED was just a part of "getting old" and not a treatable condition that they even could talk to their doctor about.

arcticbull 6y ago
Canada generally permits advertising that a drug exists to treat a specific condition so long as they don't say which drug it is -- or an ad for a drug, so long as they don't say what condition it treats. Even though both are technically illegal. It's product claim ads (Get Adalimumab today to treat your RA!) that are entirely unwelcome. [1] [1] https://www.cmaj.ca/content/169/5/425 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/169/5/425
sukilot 6y ago
Isn't "ED" a made up marketing term? We don't call having normal muscles "steroidal dysfunction".
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  See also "body odor" and "ring around the collar".

refurb 6y ago

The FDA has done plenty of research on direct to consumer (DTC) advertising for drugs.[1] It's not like they just said "yeah, that's cool, go ahead". In a report from 2015, the FDA found that there were benefits (shocking!) and drawbacks to DTC advertizing. Positives: - Most physicians agreed that because their patient saw a DTC ad, he or she asked thoughtful questions during the visit. - 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. And 80 percent of physicians believed their patients understood what condition the advertised drug treats. - Eighty-two percent responded either "very well" or "somewhat" when asked whether they believe that their patients understand that only a doctor can decide whether a drug is right for them. Negatives: - 65 percent believe DTC ads confuse patients about the relative risks and benefits of prescription drugs - Eight percent of physicians said they felt very pressured to prescribe the specific brand-name drug when asked. [1]https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/impact-direct-consumer-advertising https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/impact-...

tmpz22 6y ago
Thoughtful questions like "shouldn't I be using this drug"? Isn't that what the doctor is there for, particularly for a broad enough condition that it is targeted by ads?
- refurb 6y ago
  Depends on the doctor and specialty. Family medicine covers a massive number of diseases that are treated by thousands of different drugs. Family doctors may, but not always, know about newly approved drugs.
  - tmpz22 6y ago
    Is there no database where they can lookup "drugs for x" as a quick refresher? Aren't they paid like 300k/yr?

arcticbull 6y ago

> People act like "doctor knows best; don't question their wisdom; they have their secret sources of information and you need not concern yourself with that"... yet I as a patient would like to know about all the options on the table available to me so I can do my own research. [edit] Nobody's making the case this information should be secret, just that it shouldn't be delivered directly to your face during episodes of Futurama. If you want to know what your options are by all means, pick up the pharmacopoeia. I made this argument recently -- in Canada, DTC advertising of prescription drugs is illegal, too. Has been for years. There's a reason physicians go through years and years of medical training, and its not least to be able to identify and manage side-effects, drug interactions and perform appropriate diagnostics. You spending 30 seconds watching an ad are not ready to self-prescribe Skyrizi or Oxycontin. Doing it wrong could lead to death, dependency, or in the case of self-prescribing antibiotics, community issues in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is something you need to have a minimum basis of knowledge to interpret and understand, and pharma companies are taking advantage of a knowledge gap to push drugs circumventing the professionals. It's people who know more than you taking advantage of the fact you don't to make a buck. The same argument could be made of drivers licenses, right? Well I know how to drive, so what business does a cop have telling me I need a license or to go to traffic school? The answer is simple: you can harm yourself or others if you don't know what you're doing, and the decision is made at the population level. Plus we're dreadful at self-administering medicine. 75% of American adults take some form of multivitamin or supplement. Most supplements are useless or harmful [1] and multivitamins are associated with an increase in all-cause mortality [2,3]. Let's leave the medicine to the medical professionals, yeah? [1] https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-scientific-evidence-for-nutritional-supplements-vizsweet/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-... [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/1105957 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl... [3] https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/152/2/149/87699 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/152/2/149/87699

umvi 6y ago
> Let's leave the medicine to the medical professionals, yeah? Partially disagree. Yes, they are a very important source of information, but ultimately it is your body and information should flow freely both directions so you (the patient) are empowered to make the best possible decision. Anecdote: Doctors are not omniscient. One time when my sister was in high school, she went to the doctor because she had a weird rash. My mom researched skin rash images online for hours and concluded it was shingles. When she brought it up to the doctor he laughed and said my sister was far too young for shingles and that it was probably just an allergic reaction to something she ate. He prescribed some topical ointment to see if it helped. Well, my mom didn't like that and took her to a different doctor who, unprompted, said: "wow, that looks like zoster (shingles)!"