US corporate pushers

[Sean Hayden]

I'd say that when your product is designed to help people, the typical gripe against advertising that works so well for non-essentials, and especially purely vanity products, loses a lot of its sting.

[pErvinalia]

Advertising drugs is just bizarre. It should be up to the doctor to determine the most appropriate drug, not patients.

[Hermit]

The manufacturers pushed a massive advertising campaign for their product, and lied copiously. They stated that the percentage of people who get addicted was less than 1%, whereas it is actually 25%, which they knew at the time. pErv, you cannot lay all the blame on doctors (although of course they deserve some) - massive corporate profiteering from the misery of others is the central issue. I hope the massive lawsuit coming up hits the bastards hard...

In your 'NICE' governed system (sorry if I misremembered the acronym) is there a current similar problem? If it is different because of the oversight, I would think it would show dramatically.

Before 1972 the shenanigans by pharmaceutical companies caused huge problems. Then Prime Minister Whitlam introduced Medibank (now known as Medicare), our tax-payer funded universal health care system. This meant the government paid for prescription drugs and obviously needed to get a handle on who is prescribing what to whom. Over the years, and with ever more powerful and sophisticated databases it became increasingly easy to detect and stamp out irregularities and abuses.

The change is gradual and ongoing rather than dramatic. Pharmaceutical companies keep testing the boundaries of what they can get away with.

The health industry is supervised by the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

[Cunt]

Pharmaceutical companies keep testing the boundaries of what they can get away with.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Not that any one particular one was bad (or smart) but these things tend to 'rattle into the cracks'. Wherever there is exploitation potential, it grows. It's discouraging to think that in Canada, with free health care, one can book a trip to Mexico, get some dental work done, and spend 2 weeks convalescing on a beach, for less money than going to the dentist on the corner.

The involvement of insurance in the business of dentistry is why. I think it all knits together in hilariously unexpected and expensive ways.

[Sean Hayden]

Advertising drugs is just bizarre. It should be up to the doctor to determine the most appropriate drug, not patients.

It is still up to the doctor. Another benefit to advertising is being able to talk about other options. I'm sure you've inquired about alternate medications, and what's wrong with that?

I bet your habit of contracting every illness under the sun via Google is more of a pain to your doctor than an American who's seen an advert for bp medicine and decides to bring it up at their next appointment.

[pErvinalia]

It's much the same thing, I'd imagine.

[JimC]

You seem to be under the impression that advertisement means the calm, dispassionate description of possibilities for consumers to make rational choices about.

The reality is psychological manipulation of consumers for the benefit of consumer profit, no holds barred. Advertising addictive drugs took a blow when they banned cigarette advertising - the pushing of oxytocin is similarly evil.

[Sean Hayden]

I disagree. You're not taking into account the difference between ordinary products, vanity products, and medications. I think the difference, namely that one serves a useful and sometimes essential purpose, ought to alter your perception of what advertising of such a product means versus advertising say cigarettes to use your example.

I've given at least two possible benefits for advertising one that don't apply to the other.

I agree that intentionally misleading consumers about the dangers of any medication needs to be addressed.

[JimC]

Advertising does not exist for the benefit of consumers. It is not a dispassionate statement saying "this product has these features, as shown by independent testing; perhaps it might suit your needs"

Advertising is an emotional con game, deliberately designed to manipulate people. As offensive as I regard it for "ordinary" consumer products, it's use for dangerous medications represents the evils of capitalism in the most stark form possible.

[Sean Hayden]

I think this post really proves my point that you're not appreciating the difference. Whereas manipulation is required to sell vanity products, medications often deliver on a real promise. If you're suffering from psoriasis for example, a new medicine that works really can open the beach to you, something your ciggies can't actually do.

Another way the difference makes a difference is how the money is spent. Drug companies spend a lot of money on research and development, and unlike your cigarette company their r&d results in once again, useful, often essential products.

[Rum]

Suppose you have two or more products offering the same treatment - say for your psoriasis as an example - all assuring you they are the best? Is it a case of buyer beware? do your own research? Pot luck?

I’d rather put it in the hands of someone with a medical degree.

[Sean Hayden]

If it's a prescription then it is in the hands of a doctor. Two benefits to you as a consumer are being able to bring it up with your doctor--who may not have heard of it, or considered it--and also maybe being encouraged to seek care in the first place.

[Tero]

I don't actually trust the medical opinion on CNS drugs. It is useful to read people's (patient) opinions on them as well. Rats are poor models when studying behavior. Cancer, pain etc. is more reliable. The immune system drugs have side effects to follow, so the disclaimers at the end of the ad are very important. It is not just "flu like symptoms."

[Tero]

[laklak]

Suppose you have two or more products offering the same treatment - say for your psoriasis as an example - all assuring you they are the best? Is it a case of buyer beware? do your own research? Pot luck?

I’d rather put it in the hands of someone with a medical degree.

It is in the hands of someone with a medical degree, you can't buy these drugs without a prescription. You might ask your doc for Fuckyerkidneymumilab, but he's got to write the scrip. If he doesn't discuss it with you and explain the side effects and possible complications then he's a douchebag and should be struck off. If he does explain it and you get it anyway then it's on you. There is no excuse in this modern age for not doing your own research, if you're too stupid to use Google then there's not much anyone else can do for you. I don't take ANY medication that's prescribed for me without doing my own research.

The downside to our always connected world is it's incumbent on the individual to be a rational consumer. No government can police the entire mass communication market. Hell, they can't even stop fucking robocalls from telephone salesholes and that's been illegal for years. I still get dozens a week.