Ban the ED ads?

[Abhorred]

Originally Posted by Chris

I could do without the Trojan "stimulator" ad for women that has the old lady talking about how she uses one, to be honest.

Then may God spare you from ever seeing the ads for Geezer Butler's Geezer Butter. Shit be potent.

[BigM555]

Originally Posted by Drew

I don't agree with this guy's reasoning, exactly, but I do think ED ads should be outlawed, along with every other direct-to-consumer form of medical advertising.

I mean, think about it. The implicit message in any drug ad is that a 30-second TV spot can make a patient more informed about a drug choice than a doctor who spent 4 years in undergrad, 4 years in medical school, and two years in residency preparing to get liscensed, and ever since has been required to spend hundreds of hours in continuing education to remain certified. That's stupid.

Especially when you consider how little pharmecudical revinue is spent on R&D and how much is spent on branding, patent litigation advertizing, etc, you have to wonder why this is even allowed.

..and that's a whole different debate. I tend to believe that too many doctors are caving into demanding patients that think they need the latest pill they saw on TV. I've got no data to back it up but I can imagine if I were a Doctor I'd get tired of listening to it and cave....eventually.

On one hand I can understand that there is value in being an informed consumer. How else will you be exposed to the possible options of treatment if you can only rely on the word of your doctor? There is a reason "I think I'll get a second opinion" has become cliche. I recently switched to a younger, more progressive GP, because the one I had been with since I was born was too busy playing golf twice a week, was too close to retirement, and I didn't get the sense that he was keeping up with newer technologies and treatments. I'm about the furthest thing from a hypochondriac. I see my GP about once every 3 years, but I expect them to keep up with the times.

The caveat of course is that if a patient demands the latest "hot" pill they saw on TV, their doctor needs to have enough back bone to say "No, that is not the right treatment for you and here's why....." and then offer effective alternatives.

It's a catch 22. I tend to agree the the prevalence of advertising is promoting a society that just wants to take a pill for every ailment ("just make it easy"). The problem with censorship is that you remove a tool that the consumer has to determine whether their doctor is really covering the bases or just trying to process patients like cattle.



PS -

Originally Posted by Drew

...pharmecudical revinue...

Say what?!?!

[Drew]

I can't spell for shit. The funny thing is, I only spell revenue wrong when I'm typing. Pen on paper, no problem. It's totally a muscle memory thing.

Anyway, I started typing a much longer response, but in the interest of brevity, here goes:

Originally Posted by BigM555

On one hand I can understand that there is value in being an informed consumer. How else will you be exposed to the possible options of treatment if you can only rely on the word of your doctor?

This is the thing that blows my mind, and is the perfect example of the problem we're having in modern medicine. Essentially, what you're asking is, "If I can't get all my options in 30-second "buy me" infomercial sound bytes on TV, how can I possibly merely take the word of an oath-bound professional who has spent ten years in school and untold years practicing since to become the most knowledgable authority he or she can be?"

The simple problem here is in medicine, you're not a "consumer" in the traditional sense where you give someone money and they give you pills. Rather, you give someone money, and they provide guidance and expertise to help you maintain your health. The drugs used to do so are merely a possible means, and not the end.

The sooner this "consumer medicine" mentality goes away, the better.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by BigM555

The caveat of course is that if a patient demands the latest "hot" pill they saw on TV, their doctor needs to have enough back bone to say "No, that is not the right treatment for you and here's why....." and then offer effective alternatives.

Even then that's not enough. Once a patient decides he's a candidate for a name-brand med, that's what he wants, and it doesn't matter if there's a cheaper generic at a 3rd of the cost with way fewer side effects, he doesn't feel like he's gotten his money's worth unless he leaves with "his" drug.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Abhorred

Then may God spare you from ever seeing the ads for Geezer Butler's Geezer Butter. Shit be potent.

[BigM555]

Originally Posted by Drew

Essentially, what you're asking is, "If I can't get all my options in 30-second "buy me" infomercial sound bytes on TV, how can I possibly merely take the word of an oath-bound professional who has spent ten years in school and untold years practicing since to become the most knowledgable authority he or she can be?"

Well, no I'm not asking that, but I see your point. From my own rational perspective the purpose of viewing the advertising would only to be made aware of options.

Originally Posted by Drew

Even then that's not enough. Once a patient decides he's a candidate for a name-brand med, that's what he wants, and it doesn't matter if there's a cheaper generic at a 3rd of the cost with way fewer side effects, he doesn't feel like he's gotten his money's worth unless he leaves with "his" drug.

Yup, and that gets the marketers wringing their hands. That's their job. It's left up to the "consumer" to rationalize and discuss with their chosen medical professional.

The flip side of course is that it's a commonly held belief that the pharmaceutical companies lobby doctors to pedal their wares. How many golf club memberships or swimming pools has Pfizer paid for? What is the alternative for the general public, without the benefit of years of medical training, to know whether their practitioner is abreast of all possible treatment options?

I realize that medicine is a little different than the typical consumer relationship (and have argued it here before), but oath bound and trained or not, it's unquestionable that there are "bad" doctors out there. Maybe its only the prevalence of today's media but it seems I hear a growing number of cases where patients where short changed by their doctors and had to conduct their own research and/or seek a ridiculous number of "2nd" opinions to be properly diagnosed and treated. To me this echos the typical consumer relationship in that the best "consumer" (aka patient) is an informed one. We don't typically rely on only one source for other things, why would you want to do so with something as important as your health?

I doubt that there is an easy answer to the issue of maintaining an informed public but I'm pretty certain that the "discomfort" in explaining bodily functions to little Johnny is a VERY poor excuse for censorship.......regardless of how much we all dislike the ads.

[Kevan]

Originally Posted by Drew

Especially when you consider how little pharmecudical revinue is spent on R&D and how much is spent on branding, patent litigation advertizing, etc, you have to wonder why this is even allowed.

Dude...you're 0 for 3.

How about a middle ground:
- Only air the ads from 8PM until 6AM.
This way the drug companies can still get what they want ($$$) and Joe Consumer is still awake...and in PRIME TIME (literally and figuratively...and in TV terms).

I don't know about you guys, but I'm seriously considering hauling a couple of cast iron tubs to the top of a cliff so I can hold hands with Rachel.
So romantic....

Want to make a billion dollars in week?
Show Hef with a PEZ dispenser of little blue pills in the hot tub at his place with his "partners".
Merchandise AND product!
Talk about stimulating the economy.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by BigM555

Well, no I'm not asking that, but I see your point. From my own rational perspective the purpose of viewing the advertising would only to be made aware of options.



Yup, and that gets the marketers wringing their hands. That's their job. It's left up to the "consumer" to rationalize and discuss with their chosen medical professional.

The flip side of course is that it's a commonly held belief that the pharmaceutical companies lobby doctors to pedal their wares. How many golf club memberships or swimming pools has Pfizer paid for? What is the alternative for the general public, without the benefit of years of medical training, to know whether their practitioner is abreast of all possible treatment options?

But that's the thing, why would YOU need to be aware of the options before going to the doctor? Isn't that the point of going, to find out what your options are?

Your flip side is easy enough to deal with - laws have already tightened up quite a lot with regards to that kind of stuff - all you need to do is tighten them up the rest of the way. A common tactic is to invite a doctor to an all-expenses-paid "informational seminar" about the merits of a particular drug in, say, Cancun. Simply do what they do in finance, and forbid a medical professional from accepting any sort of gift or service with a fair value in excess of $50 (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) over the course of a year.

And doctors are required to log a certain number of hours per X years, as I understand, to remain liscensed. When in doubt, assume they are, and if for some reason you don't have faith in your doctor, find another one; the medical world is based around "consumers" inasmuch as you and I have perfect freedom to choose the doctor we think will best serve our needs.

Long story short, there is NO reason for direct-to-consumer drug advertising. It's crazy, it leads to bad medical care when doctors have to deal with pressure from dangerously uninformed patients to prescribe a certain plan of action, and it seriously increases the cost of treatment since so much overhead is in ad revenue.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by Drew

And doctors are required to log a certain number of hours per X years, as I understand, to remain liscensed. When in doubt, assume they are, and if for some reason you don't have faith in your doctor, find another one; the medical world is based around "consumers" inasmuch as you and I have perfect freedom to choose the doctor we think will best serve our needs.

You just touched on why the HMO needs to die. They give you a book of approved doctors, and if your doctor is not in their "network", then they won't cover your visit. It gives the insurance companies the opportunity to cherry pick the doctors that will play the game the way the want them too, and not necessarily what is best for the patient.

[ohio_eric]

Insurance companies blow. Recently I was prescribed three medications adn my insurance only covered two. So it was either ask for alternative prescriptions or shell out $200.