Though we won't discuss it much in class, a major issue in science communication is the problem of "direct-to-consumer" advertising for pharmaceuticals. On the one hand, we believe people should have more information (that's both a "democratic" ideal, and aligns with the Mertonian norms). On the other hand, there's substantial evidence that much of the marketing of drugs is driven by profits, not science. Here's a recent case:
Drug Ads Raise Questions for Heart Pioneer - New York Times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I have always wondered about this topic. When I watch television, i constantly see advertisements for different drugs. But I have always wondered why these drugs are being directly marketed to the consumer. As a young adult, i have experienced different doctors who have perscribed different drugs one condition. I have always trusted the doctor's prescription because i know that he/she specializes in the field of medicine, and knows much more about these drugs than i do. I think that it doesn't make too much sense for these companies to advertise their drugs on television if the final word on whether or not to take the perscription lies in the hands of a well educated doctor.
Tyler brings up a good point. I also feel as though drugs should be recommended by physicians and not advertised via television. Consider the drug Lipitor that was discussed in the article. This drug targets individuals with high LDL-cholesterol. I assume the individuals were made aware of this high cholesterol problem from their physicians. Thus, I feel it is the duty of the physician to recommend appropriate treatment upon identification of the condition. The drugs should be advertised to the physician, and the physician can make the appropriate choice regarding its distribution to patients. I believe drug information should be available to individuals who choose to pursue the information, but I feel that drug advertisement (as depicted by the Lipitor example) is detrimental to the patient.
This brings up a big issue I had with my doctor in the past 4 years. I was diagnosed with allergies and circulated through 5 different pill-form drugs, and every nose spray on the market.
The drugs did not work, but my doctor was so sure he knew what was wrong with me and HE even kept citing how wonderful the drugs were (and asking if I saw any commercials myself). I was experiencing a serious case of cognitive dissonance when I stopped taking the pills last summer. I took matters into my own hands last semester and saw an allergy specialist and a sinus specialist. I do not have allergies to any common allergen, nor is there something wrong with my sinuses. But my sinuses and head still enjoy bothering me daily.
How does this tie into comm 285? a) doctor-patient relationships; should the patient's thoughts and observations have no say? is the doctor the "boss?" Is it not the patient's health that should be the "boss" of the matter, and both patient and doctor work together to understand the problem? And lastly, the affect of commercial advertising on doctors. My doctor swore on these allergy meds. I wonder what kind of persuasive communication occurs between doctors and these drug companies. I mean the doctors get all these free samples somehow!
I agree with Anna. It's hard to even trust doctors' advice to take a certain medication. Not only do pharmaceutical companies have their representatives give out those free samples, but they also provide financial incentives to doctors, pharmacists and sometimes even health plans to prescribe or recommend certain drugs. There have even been cases of insurance companies paying doctors to switch patients to cheaper, generic brand drugs....I've posted a link to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal regarding this topic if anyone is interested.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120114138064112219.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo
Anna B--I had the exact problem. My doctor was pushing the same medicines I saw advertised on TV on me. In the end, I didn't have seasonal allergies like he said.
I also think it's interesting to see the relationship the pharmaceutical industry has with doctors--ski trips? Vacations? Cars?
I think that the people should be provided with as much information as possible, but unfortunately the majority of the information can be inaccurate/for all the wrong reasons when it comes from ads in the television, or in magazines. It always kills me when I see those weight loss pills that aren't even FDA approved (because they can be downright dangerous) but yet they sell like crazy.
I agree that the way in which pharmaceutical companies market their drugs to doctors (dinners, vacation, etc...) may also be problematic, but that doesn't make direct-to-consumer advertising any less problematic. I've heard about many instances from a family friend who is a general physician of patients coming in and demanding prescriptions for drugs they have seen advertised on TV that are completely inappropriate and unnecessary for their conditions. This can create a lot of tension in the doctor-patient relationship. Additionally, it makes me fear that in today's context of rushed appointments, doctors may sometimes prescribe unnecessary drugs just to get patients off their backs. Considering the already huge costs of health care, this would be a serious problem. It is one thing to use alluring pictures of the great outdoors to sell clothing, food, etc...and an other all together to use a beautiful picture of someone rowing to market medicine.
This article focuses on the integrity of the ad. I think Pfizer tried very hard to make a compelling ad in order to get as many people as possible to purchase this drug. Pfizer looses its patent for Lipitor sometime in 2010, at which point other companies will begin to make considerably cheaper generics. Lipitor is Pfizer's "blockbuster" drug, and the company probably wants to get as much money out of it as possible before their patent expires.
On a seprate note, my PAM health care class recently discussed the issue of direct to consumer advertising. Although there are negatives to having drug companies advertise both to doctors and to patients, I think that ads can be a good thing. The particular example I have in mind is the anti-depression medications ads. Before Prozac came out, not many people sought treatment for depression because it was highly stigmatized. However, the television advertisements of Prozac helped to make depression seem more socially acceptable and, as a result, got more people to see their doctor about depression.
This is a difficult subject matter because on one hand I think that advertisements, like the Lipitor commercial, can be misleading and may bring false hope to some people. But at the same time, those who are trained to analyze commercials can view commercials and understand that what is being said might not be completely accurate. It is kind of scary to think how much we depend on doctors and that we sometimes put our lives in their own hands. It is even scarier when they misdiagnose their patients.
I think it is messed up for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their medicine via commercial advertisements and even more with celebrities (even if the celebrity was the mason in the building stone of heart medicine and stuff).
Like almost everyone else who posted to this, most of the commercials says "ask your doctor" if this is right for you, so that must mean that physicians already know about the medicine, so why then must these companies advertise to, for lack of a better word, the ignorant public.
Unless it is a over the counter, non-prescription medicine then there should be no advertisements of pharmaceutical products to the public.
Post a Comment