13
   

Would you like to see prescription drug commercials not allowed on TV?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 11:58 am
@Eva,
I agree; most people do not understand the dangers of drugs - or even vitamin supplements.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 04:42 pm
@Eva,
Quote:
marketed to an uneducated public
yes of course, on the other hand there's the possibility that advertising could increase education of the public. would that be bad? anyway, pharmaceuticals is a legit industry in the USA that provides substantial health benefits to billions of people. the legal right to advertise on public media is obvious (to me) I simply can't understand restricting that right.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 05:11 pm
@dyslexia,
Not so sure about that! Many medical experts say Americans take too many drugs that are not necessary.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 05:21 pm
@dyslexia,
"Increase education of the public"??? Dys, you are one of the only people I know without a medical degree who might actually be smart enough to understand and interpret the fine print in pharmaceutical ads and packaging inserts (with a magnifying glass, of course.) Most of us are totally lost! That fine print is where the pertinent information is, but that fine print is there for legal reasons, not for public education. If it were, it would be written in much more easily understood language and run in larger, more readable type.

Yes, I am suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry, but I am more suspicious of the advertising industry, having once been part of it. The people I worked with never considered whether they should promote a product to a certain market. They only considered whether they could. It is their job to increase the client's market share. Period. It is not their job to determine whether their efforts are in the best interests of the public. That is why some oversight (regulation) has always been necessary.

The FCC is charged with setting up broadcasting regulations in the interest of public safety. I believe this is a public safety issue, and apparently so did the FCC until fairly recently. I wonder what made them change their minds?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 05:39 pm
@Eva,
ah my dear Eva, I do appreciate your reasoned response, a breath of fresh air. of course you're also wrong. advertising ( as despicable as it might be) is a legitimate industry as is pharmaceuticals. I shall support free speech as an essential element of democracy until it's proven to be detrimental to and open and free society. censorship without basis (fraud) is the very antithesis of all I consider american democracy.
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 06:10 pm
@dyslexia,
I respect your opinion, as always.

Although I don't trust them, I never said that the pharmaceutical or advertising industries were "not legitimate" or "despicable." Just profit-driven, which is perfectly acceptable in a capitalist society. It is not their role to be altruistic and determine what is best for the public. That's why we have governmental agencies like the FCC. That IS their proper role.

There are always limits to free speech, and issues of public safety are right at the top of the list of limitations. Would you consider "potential danger" a form of censorship without basis?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 06:26 pm
@Eva,
Quote:
Would you consider "potential danger" a form of censorship without basis?
well, I wouldn't recommend eating 417 bananas nor would I recommend banning Chiquita from advertising. re "prescription drugs" they must, by definition, be prescribed by a doctor. Because you (Johm q Public) has seen an ad on the telly which could lead you to asking your doctor about said drug does not, in any way, constitute potential danger anymore than buying and ingesting 400 tablets of aspirin, shall we as a society ban Bayer or Alka Seltzer from (plop plop fiz fiz) advertising on the telly? 1,000's of people were killed in chevrolets last year, shall be ban GM from advertising? any particular line in the sand you'd like to draw or perhaps just leave it at "well, that's different" no it's not different, it's the price of democracy.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 06:30 pm
@Eva,
Quote:
There are always limits to free speech, and issues of public safety are right at the top of the list of limitations. Would you consider "potential danger" a form of censorship without basis?
Yelling "FIRE" in a theatre is not free speech and limited, banning advertising of prescription drugs on t.v. is equivalent to banning theatres because of the risk of someone yelling "FIRE".
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 06:31 pm
@Eva,
Eva wrote:

The FCC is charged with setting up broadcasting regulations in the interest of public safety. I believe this is a public safety issue, and apparently so did the FCC until fairly recently. I wonder what made them change their minds?


It was the FDA, not the FCC. More here.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 06:32 pm
@Eva,
Letting people know that there is a new drug available for a medical condition is education. If you have persistent allergies and haven't had success before, knowing that there is a new medication is useful. Before ED advertising, how many men just lived with it? Yes, advertising is all pervasive, yes it doesn't adequately explain the risks, but that's what the doctors are for. Saying people shouldn't have access to this type of information because it makes them question their doctors is like saying that medical information sites like WebMD should be shut down because people don't have the medical training to utilize what they find there. As annoying as the advertising is, I can't see a legitimate reason to ban it.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 08:28 pm
@JPB,
Thanks for the link. It was a good explanation. I'm really surprised the FCC wasn't involved in this, as they are the ones who typically regulate all broadcast advertising. I was particularly glad to read this: "The FDA has been charged with studying the impacts of DTCA (Direct To Consumer Advertising)...." It's good to hear that the effects will be monitored.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 08:36 pm
@dyslexia,
Are you assuming that everyone will deal with the information in the proper way? As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Here's a good example:
tsarstepan wrote:

For the most part, I would like to see prescription drug commercials banned from television. One way to slow down the group of people who try and diagnose their own illnesses and go to certain questionable doctors to have them rubberstamp the patients uneducated guesses.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 08:44 pm
@Eva,
Far too many doctors unnecessarily overprescribe antibiotics when the patient asks them for a simple sniffle. The doctors should know better to talk the patient out of this uneducated demand. It's one of the greatest factors to the rise of antibiotic viral and bacterial strains.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 08:48 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
...shall we as a society ban Bayer or Alka Seltzer from (plop plop fiz fiz) advertising on the telly? 1,000's of people were killed in chevrolets last year, shall be ban GM from advertising? any particular line in the sand you'd like to draw or perhaps just leave it at "well, that's different" no it's not different, it's the price of democracy.


Of course not. Bayer aspirin and Alka Seltzer are OTC (over the counter) medications, and like GM, they sell to the general public. No intermediary approval is legally required for safety, so it's entirely appropriate for them to advertise to the public.

In the case of prescription drugs, however, our government has already determined that the general public is not educated enough to determine if the medication is suitable, so a doctor's advice is mandated. It seems questionable for that same government to then allow those drugs to be marketed directly to that public.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 08:50 pm
@Eva,
lol, I never assume anyone will deal with anything in the proper way, especially information. I do, however, welcome the opportunity for anyone to have the responsibility to determine for themselves. Included with that opportunity should be appropriate information/warnings such as from the FDA "this drug has not been tested or found safe to use" as an example, once again, I stand strongly on the side of free speech/marketing sans fraud. btw I never bought a Yugo but I never advocated banning their ads.
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 08:59 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

lol, I never assume anyone will deal with anything in the proper way, especially information...


Ha! We agree!!!

And on that note, I will say goodnight. <yawn>
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 09:47 pm
@dyslexia,
yes of course, on the other hand there's the possibility that advertising could increase education of the public. would that be bad? anyway, pharmaceuticals is a legit industry in the USA that provides substantial health benefits to billions of people. the legal right to advertise on public media is obvious (to me) I simply can't understand restricting that right.


It's not that simple. We no longer allow cigarette advertising. The reason there is pretty clear, I would agree.
Yes, it is a legit industry, a necessary one that we are fortunate to have. That isn't the question. Should they be advertising prescription medicine that supposedly, doctors decide to give to a patient.

The patient's role and the effects of advertising is a valid discussion. Does advertising result in unnecessary drug use?

I still have the same question, does advertising result in increased drug use. Obviously, yes it does. It must be effective, it costs big bucks.

Why? Do the doctors miss the need for the drug or is it increased prescriptions that are not necessary?

I can understand the answer for recreational drugs like viagra, but what's the deal with cancer drugs, etc?
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 09:58 pm
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
Why? Do the doctors miss the need for the drug or is it increased prescriptions that are not necessary?

The answer ranges from the disdainful incentive of monetary kickbacks ... to the sheer apathetic laziness of some doctors who don't want to explain the effectiveness or lack thereof of a particular drug to a stubborn **GIVE ME THAT PARTICULAR DRUG NOW** ad influenced consumer patient.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 02:24 pm
I believe the bottom line is that the individual must be responsible for all the choices he/she makes whether instructed by their doctor or learned on tv ads.

I've learned this lesson early, because my wife is an RN, and she always asks me to question my doctor about anything my doctor prescribes or suggest for my care that I don't understand.

Fortunately for me, my doctor is the best I've had in my life. She even asks me if I have any questions before ending our appointment.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 05:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, and for consumers such as you and I, I would say advertising may be ok. I have been fortunate enough to find a doctor I trust and have an open discussion about decisions. I happen to have HCV and we have had a few frank discussions about treatment and he leaves the decisions to me. I also am smart enough to respect his statements and know that if he says something, he has researched it and knows what he is talking about. I know he is working in my best interest.

I think that relationship may be unique. Unfortunately.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
Recommend good HBO series? - Discussion by dlowan
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
What TV shows do you watch? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/19/2019 at 03:36:22