4 ms·

Though to defend advertisement a little, it does inform people that there is a treatment for their condition and to go to a doctor.

FireBeyond 13y ago
Perhaps. A more realistic view is that "if something is paining or inconveniencing you to the point of discomfort, then you should talk to your doctor". In amongst all the specific ads (which actually, to my mind, are not necessarily a bad thing - think of the 'is drug X not helping with your condition? Recent studies have shown that adding drug B to your existing regime may improve efficiency'), you get oh-so-generic ads. "Feeling 'low energy'? X may be able to help. Ask your doctor if X is right for you!" These days, you can largely assume that most conditions are manageable, if not treatable and that your quality of life should be the driver, not advertising incentivizing you to go to the doctor (and giving you a helpful laundry list of other symptoms that you may or may not have to "aid" the "diagnosis" most convenient to the manufacturer).
- Houshalter 13y ago
  It's not that simple. People with allergies might not know that there is a better medication available. People with restless leg syndrome may just think it's some weird thing unique to them. Depression is a really big one to get people to go to a doctor for. Notice there aren't any commercials for stuff like antibiotics. People are already going to a doctor when they have an infection and other serious conditions. They advertise the stuff that needs advertisement. If it didn't work they wouldn't do it.
  - Retric 13y ago
    There are really two kinds of drug advertising threes symptoms XYZ are treatable and theirs take drug Y you will thank me in the morning. IMO, there is no reason to allow the second kind. Sure, if there is only one drug to treat a condition there similar. However, there are several drugs available to treat most diseases and really should be up to you and your doctor to decide the right drug based on efficiency and side effects not some drug companies advertising budget. It's important to note the second type is far more common and far more expensive than the first.

FireBeyond 13y ago

Perhaps. A more realistic view is that "if something is paining or inconveniencing you to the point of discomfort, then you should talk to your doctor". In amongst all the specific ads (which actually, to my mind, are not necessarily a bad thing - think of the 'is drug X not helping with your condition? Recent studies have shown that adding drug B to your existing regime may improve efficiency'), you get oh-so-generic ads. "Feeling 'low energy'? X may be able to help. Ask your doctor if X is right for you!" These days, you can largely assume that most conditions are manageable, if not treatable and that your quality of life should be the driver, not advertising incentivizing you to go to the doctor (and giving you a helpful laundry list of other symptoms that you may or may not have to "aid" the "diagnosis" most convenient to the manufacturer).

Houshalter 13y ago
It's not that simple. People with allergies might not know that there is a better medication available. People with restless leg syndrome may just think it's some weird thing unique to them. Depression is a really big one to get people to go to a doctor for. Notice there aren't any commercials for stuff like antibiotics. People are already going to a doctor when they have an infection and other serious conditions. They advertise the stuff that needs advertisement. If it didn't work they wouldn't do it.
- Retric 13y ago
  There are really two kinds of drug advertising threes symptoms XYZ are treatable and theirs take drug Y you will thank me in the morning. IMO, there is no reason to allow the second kind. Sure, if there is only one drug to treat a condition there similar. However, there are several drugs available to treat most diseases and really should be up to you and your doctor to decide the right drug based on efficiency and side effects not some drug companies advertising budget. It's important to note the second type is far more common and far more expensive than the first.