It's time to ban DTC ads for medications in the US

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: seeker1963

The "side effects" thing is kind of a misnomer required by the FDA. Example: i take Humira. One of its side effects is a rare form of lymphoma.

It happened 1 time in trials. SO now its listed as a side effect. The dude probably already had it.

I don't consider death should be an acceptable side effect do you? Maybe for a patient who is going to die regardless, but not for a patient who still has a few years left?

originally posted by: underwerks
I never understood the point of prescription drug commercials. Most of the time if you show knowledge of drugs or pharmacology when discussing with your doctor what treatments would be best for you, you get labeled a drug seeker. And that gets emblazoned on your medical records which causes doctors to not treat you the same as everyone else.

Where are the people who just bring up drugs they'd like to try with their doctor? Is that even a thing?

A lot of times it is just brand recognition. In many cases, it is actually advertising to doctors in an indirect way. I think the Pharma companies are trying to get patients to ask their doctors more than anything.

I don't really have an issue with DtC ads, but I do question their efficacy in terms of advertising given a prescription is needed.

Companies sometimes make some questionable ad spending choices. When I worked at a management consulting firm, our firm advertised occasionally and it made no sense to me. The purchasers of our services were CxOs of F500 companies. They all knew about the firm, so I didn't understand who the ad was trying to convince. Joe Middle America didn't make the purchase decision, so why bother advertising? Those that needed to know, already knew about the firm... no amount of advertising was going to increase brand recognition.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: seeker1963

The "side effects" thing is kind of a misnomer required by the FDA. Example: i take Humira. One of its side effects is a rare form of lymphoma.

It happened 1 time in trials. SO now its listed as a side effect. The dude probably already had it.

I don't consider death should be an acceptable side effect do you? Maybe for a patient who is going to die regardless, but not for a patient who still has a few years left?

If 1 out of 1 million people die from a bad reaction... it is acceptable. Nothing is perfect. People die from peanuts. Doesn't mean stores should stop selling peanuts.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

...the simple fact is that non-medical people aren't knowledgeable enough about diseases and medications to make these kinds of judgements. Marketing directly to them is straight up unethical.

The entire foundation and structure of the system is unethical because it makes people ignorant -- and worse, afraid! -- of their own bodies and how to nurture and nurse and sustain that body. So the fundamental problem is also the solution: educate people so they can make informed and wise decisions for themselves!!!

The medical system is failing people -- obviously -- or this could not and would not be an issue. If I have a condition that is being treated effectively and successfully, then I could watch a gazillion DTC ads and wouldn't pay them a bit of attention -- because I wouldn't need to! So if someone feels the need to talk to their doctor about a med they see advertised, it's because their needs are not being met. But the final decision of whether or not that patient gets that prescription is up to the doctor. It's the doctor with all the power... and the doctor's "best" interests are not necessarily that of the patients' best interests.

But this is what happens when the people are made stupid and forced to let someone else make their healthcare decisions for them.

a reply to: Edumakated

A lot of times it is just brand recognition. In many cases, it is actually advertising to doctors in an indirect way. I think the Pharma companies are trying to get patients to ask their doctors more than anything.

Indirectly marketing to doctors makes sense. I've just always thought it was weird that most of the prescription drug commercials end with "Talk to your doctor today about trying our new drug!"

Like people are just going to go into their doctors office and ask to try a new drug they saw on TV. That's how you end up on a list. Lmao.

a reply to: Boadicea

It's similar to WebMD. People get sick then they go onto WebMD and look up their symptoms. The thing is that any given symptom or set of symptoms may be shared across many different ailments ranging from minor to super severe. Doctors are better trained at differentiating, but even they fail (and this is why you should seek second opinions from another doctor if you are ever in doubt about your prescribed treatment). So it reasons that you would be even less successful at diagnosing yourself.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Edumakated

A lot of times it is just brand recognition. In many cases, it is actually advertising to doctors in an indirect way. I think the Pharma companies are trying to get patients to ask their doctors more than anything.

Indirectly marketing to doctors makes sense. I've just always thought it was weird that most of the prescription drug commercials end with "Talk to your doctor today about trying our new drug!"

Like people are just going to go into their doctors office and ask to try a new drug they saw on TV. That's how you end up on a list. Lmao.

People do it. The worst are the hypochondriacs who see a list of symptoms and then tell themselves they have that illness without ever going to the doctor first.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Edumakated

A lot of times it is just brand recognition. In many cases, it is actually advertising to doctors in an indirect way. I think the Pharma companies are trying to get patients to ask their doctors more than anything.

Indirectly marketing to doctors makes sense. I've just always thought it was weird that most of the prescription drug commercials end with "Talk to your doctor today about trying our new drug!"

Like people are just going to go into their doctors office and ask to try a new drug they saw on TV. That's how you end up on a list. Lmao.

If they have symptoms, they may ask their doctor at a visit. It also helps the Pharma sales reps visiting the doctor's offices selling the drugs. It all about brand recognition.

I don't think the opiate addiction crisis has anything to do with drug advertising. If anything it has to do with Doctor's just over prescribing pain medication instead of just telling people to just deal with it. Then you get people getting addicted to taking the medicine instead of actually addressing what is causing their pain. I also think we just have a bunch of losers as well and we make it easy for them to just be social screw ups.

I swear every drug addict begging around my parts fits a cultural stereotype. Young white male or female. Typically a hipster / rocker type. Tattoos. They all dress similarly. Kind of this grunge look. Guitar. Backpack. If it weren't for the dirt under their nails / swollen hands from shooting up they'd almost look fashionable.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: seeker1963

The "side effects" thing is kind of a misnomer required by the FDA. Example: i take Humira. One of its side effects is a rare form of lymphoma.

It happened 1 time in trials. SO now its listed as a side effect. The dude probably already had it.

I don't consider death should be an acceptable side effect do you? Maybe for a patient who is going to die regardless, but not for a patient who still has a few years left?

The hell that my life has been for the last several years...im willing to risk death just to have a few moments of "normal" again.

Another thing to consider is this..

Doctors are not 100% familiar with all the ins and outs of the drugs they are prescribing, and aren't required to know the details like a pharmacist would be.

Doctors aren't even aware of ALL the drugs, they typically only have to prescribe a few dozen different drugs over the course of time unless they are a specialist.

Pharmacists are the ones who know the ins and outs of drugs, interactions between drugs, etc. That's what they go to school for.

So, why is a doctor who only has a rudimentary knowledge of a substance prescribing it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is one of those topics that I do believe that the government should control.

I'm generally not for bans, per se, but there's a difference between banning a substance and banning a type of commercial. There is zero good gained from advertising medications directly to the general public, especially in the modern age where the information contained in the ads (disease that it treats and possible side effects) can be easily found online or in the drug inserts that all doctors should have available to the patients.

THAT is how these drugs should be introduced to the individual--you have an ailment, and the doctors discuss the treatment options, which generally include medication. We should not be coerced into wanting these drugs before going to the doctor.

Hell, I'm even of the opinion that the marketing of these drugs and their treatments contribute to the amount of people who exhibit these symptoms--repeated ads discussing depression or other ailments could psychologically contribute to people seeking out treatments for such ailments. The power of suggestion is very strong.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Check this out. This is text from the second link I posted in the OP:

Deep-pocketed pharmaceutical companies argued that patients have a right to know all their options and that pitching prescription drugs on TV thus would benefit the public (and, coincidentally, boost sales). Regulators eventually bowed to industry pressure.

The impact was immediate. Spending by drug companies on TV ads hit $664 million within a year. By 2005, the industry was spending more than $3 billion annually on televised DTC ads. The figure nowadays tops $5 billion.

Is this a good thing? The pharmaceutical industry thinks so. DTC ads increase sales and steer patients away from cheaper generic alternatives.

Also this is what that particular article was written about:

Nevertheless, the drug industry is now seeking official approval to expand its DTC efforts by also promoting so-called off-label drug uses — that is, uses for which a drug wasn't originally intended and for which it may not be fully tested. An FDA spokeswoman told me a policy change is under consideration.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did not know the latter part of that...lobbying is an unfortunate thing, whether it is in support of things with which I agree or disagree.

Lobbying should be outlawed--if an industry wants to advocate on their behalf, they can petition the government the same way that individual citizens must.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm kind of split on lobbying. I see how it can benefit the lobbiers at the expense of everything else, but at the same time it is a good voice for smaller industries that have trouble getting their voices heard to be heard. What really needs to happen is Citizens United be overturned before anything else.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Different issue altogether, though.

Of course there are two sides to the lobbying issue, good and bad, but I think that the sum total is a negative, which is why I don't like the practice.

Like I said, there are other ways to organize a large voice and deliver it to our government--lobbying is all about crony capitalism, and IMO, that's what's going to be the demise of our nation eventually.

Emphasis on the "crony" part of that, not the "capitalism."

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The power of suggestion is very strong.

The 'Amazing Kreskin' would be proud

That aside, solid take on the issue. Wish I could add something -- you said it so well I'll just say, "what Slap said".

I always thought American Medicine Ads were weird but awhile back I was watching a Fox Live stream to watch Tucker Carlson and an Ad came up about new diabetes medicine, I did my research once I saw the ad and then I recommended it to my mother to check out, anyway a few months down the line, the doctor prescribed this medication anyway, it had recently been made available by Novo.

She seems to be doing a lot better on it, she's on a short term for the daytime and a 12 hour shot for evenings and she seems to be doing well =], less side effects and better sugar level control.

So, technically, not all ads are bad if they are relevant to you and you do the right research into the medicine, it might open your eyes to new advancements you never knew were out there.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Awwww...shucks.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't necessarily disagree to the extent that not every medical situation can be self-diagnosed and self-treated without professional help, but there is much people can do -- and should do -- for themselves without seeking professional medical attention, or even before seeking professional medical attention. Professional care should not always be our first and only resort.

For example, for most cases of the flu or a cold, there is no need to seek medical attention. We can nurse and nurture ourselves, and for the most part just let it run its course. However, everyone should know what signs to watch for to know when they should (or must) seek professional medical attention. Likewise, for most cuts and sprains and other injuries, people should know how to provide their own first aid and dress and treat their wound/injury, and let their body heal itself. No professional medical attention necessary. But folks should also know when they should seek medical attention -- either immediately, or later, such as an infected wound.

People also need to know how to research medications, and understand that every medication has its limitations and its adverse effects and will effect each and everyone differently. They need to know which side effects are life-threatening and which are not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think we have ever agreed on anything before, but for once I think you are spot on. I even gave you the S&F despite the personal pain it caused me to do so, lol.

The DTC marketing is completely wrong and should be banned. These medications need to be suggested by a trained medical professional and not the consumer. I rarely agree with banning anything, but there are so many things wrong with this tactic of marketing directly to the patients...not the least of which is increased costs for medication.

I would be happy to see these get the same treatment as cigarettes...no TV spots and limited print advertising. There is no place for DTC ads in the pharmaceutical field.

Most other countries (and I also hate to go along with what other countries do) already banned these sorts of ads because they are destructive and circumvent a system in place to protect patients.

Anyway, this was a painful post having to agree with you and agreeing with a ban all in the same thread. I am glad you are right for once.