Stupak scares me. This comment: “Pharmaceutical companies should consider it a privilege to be allowed to air DTC ads in this country,” he said, adding: “We should make sure that pharmaceuticals companies conduct themselves responsibly.”

I understand that there is great debate over the rights and responsibilities of commercial speech. I also understand that we have had pharma DTC ads in the US for a very short time, so it may be tough to argue that, when the framers created the First Amendment, they did so to ensure we would know cholesterol can come from steamed crab legs, as well as your aunt crabby Betty.

But to say “Pharmaceutical companies should consider it a privilege…(and) We should make sure that pharmaceuticals companies conduct themselves responsibly.” sounds like a direct path to the slippery slope. Yikes.

Don’t diss my man, and his tech guy!

It is working perfectly, now.

On my feed, Pharmagossip already stopped by, from across the pond.

This “free-community-tech” certainly has a wow factor, no?

But now we wait for floor votes to end.

Lengthy read, so thank you if you took the time-

Your Doctor Is Not Your T.V.

Often, usually on television, one viewing will see an advertisement for some type of medication often- usually one involved in a large market sponsored by a big pharmaceutical company for a particular T.V. network. This is called direct to consumer advertising, and doctors would prefer they did not exist.
Since 1997, when the FDA relaxed regulations regarding this form of advertising. As a result, the popularity of the creation of such commercials has greatly increased. I understand that the pharmaceutical industry spends around 5 billion annually on this media source now. Normally, the creation of such a commercial becomes visible to the consumer within a year of the advertised med’s approval, which raises safety concerns. And involves money spent that could be applied to greater uses, but we are dealing with a corporation here. after all.

The purpose of DTC ads is not education, as advertising’s objective is to increase sales and grow the market, in this case, for a particular perceived medical condition or disease state. The intent of DTC advertising is to generate an emotional response from the viewer, such as fear or concern, that the viewer will then question as to whether they need to seek treatment for what may be an unconfirmed medical condition, or a real condition, for that matter.

DTC advertising is also a catalyst for and similar to disease mongering.

Disease mongering is the intentional creation of medical flaws through exaggeration and embellishments through media sources and propaganda, as often seen with DTC advertising. Yet the flaws may not be truly of a medical concern, yet these may be corporate creations of these questionable human ailments that do not require treatment, possibly. One of my favorites is the new indication for the use of an anti-depressant for some sort of social disorder. This used to be called introversion, a term created by Dr. Carl Yung. And it is a personality trait, not a medical disease. There are other questionable medical conditions claimed in the contents of DTC commercials, as the creators wish to grow the market for a particular, and possibly fictional, disease state. Then there is baldness treatments advertised. Lifestyle meds are not treatment meds for illnesses. The ED commercials, in my opinion, are the most unrealistic of them all. The actors look like marathon runners.

Also, DTC ads discuss only one treatment option, when likely several options exist for true medical disorders. This should be left to the discretion of the doctor, as they assess your health, not your television or another media source. That’s why most of the world does not conduct DTC advertising, with the exception of our country and New Zealand. When it is stated on DTC ads to ‘ask your doctor’, that basically means to go get this med.

Finally, DTC advertising and its ability to influence viewers to make their own assessment instead of a medical professional remains largely unregulated. People are prone to believe what they see and hear, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Many, after viewing a DTC ad, seek out a doctor visit and request whatever product that was advertised, which makes things cumbersome for the doctor chosen for such a visit. So the doctor and patient relationship is altered in a negative way compared to what that relationship has been historically.

Medical information and claims of flawed health ailments should come from those in the medical field instead of the corporate world, as I’ve stated a few times so far. Perhaps this will save some over-prescribing, which will benefit everyone in the long term. And the Health Care System can regain control of their purpose by those who are qualified to have such control.

Dan Abshear