Should drug companies be allowed to advertise on television, the radio or in pri

1. 73

   pagesvoiceposted 11 years ago

   Should drug companies be allowed to advertise on television, the radio or in print media?
   
   In the U.S. pharmaceutical companies fill the airwaves and print media with all types of drugs surrounding a myriad of conditions. Human nature being what it is, many people are now self diagnosing illnesses and what type of medicines they should be receiving. I've discussed this with doctors and they all agree that it drives them crazy when a patient tells them what type of medicine they should be taking. Also, do our children really need to be exposed about the advantages of taking Viagra? I'll be curious what others think about this.

   replyreport
2. 93

   peeplesposted 11 years ago

   While I personally am against using medications I think other people should be free to do as they want with them. With that, yes I think they should be able to advertise just as any other company does. People should take personal responsibility. I see lots of fast food commercials, but I don't run out to get some every time I see one.
   Do our children need to be exposed? Well I'm not sure how a viagra commercial is any different than a wrestling commercial (lots of half naked women) or a Hardees commercial (half naked woman slipping around on a wet car). Parents should be responsible for what they allow their children to watch.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      pagesvoiceposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I've never seen a Hardees ad, but you make a lot of sense. I think many have a weak will and are always looking to self medicate and the drug companies give them the guidance they need to con a doctor for a prescription.

      replyreport
3. 75

   d.williamposted 11 years ago

   Great ??s. No. Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to advertise they way the do.  Most other countries do not allow this kind of ads.  If doctors object to patients taking some responsibility for their own health care, that is the doctor's problem not the patients.  We should all be 'informed' users of any drug that the doctor orders.  Some of them are quite lethal, with deadly side effects that the doctors will never tell their patient.
   But i also object to the constant bombardment of those offensive "christian dating" ads as well.  I do not think religions, or anything that pertains to them should be pushed in your face as well as the drug ads. 
   As long as our country embraces greed as its national credo, nothing will change on t.v., or in politics, or any other walk of life.  Everything is based on "control" over others and those almighty "net profits" above all logic.
   I also agree with 'peeples' regarding viagra and cialis, and those provocative half naked commercials to sell anything that children quickly learn to equate the product with sexuality.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      pagesvoiceposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I can't begin to tell you how many times my wife and I have commented on those Christian dating ads, They drive me nuts as well.

      replyreport
4. 60

   FadyBoctorposted 11 years ago

   To be honest, as a pharmaceutical rep of 13 years I am torn by this question. On one hand I have come to realize that new novel therapies can often be delayed in uptake by practitioners. I have seen novel therapies that take diabetes, asthma, blood pressure and depression to new heights of successful treatment but remain hidden treasures if it were not for the patient asking about them (because of an add somewhere). On the other hand, however, the pharmaceutical industry has experienced a recent track record for a lot of "me too" therapies. Often, these "me too" therapies will have a generic counterpart that probably works just as well- they are a "me too" because all they want is a piece of the market pie without anything new to really offer. When patients see the branded adds and insist on using these newer therapies (without any true benefits), then I believe that is a waste of money and hope. I will disclose that there are exceptions to some branded medicines hosting worthwhile improvements over their generic counterparts. This, however, is not across the board. So in ultimate reasoning, I would say let the adds take place but always leave room for the practitioner to say "no" without insistent argument. Awareness and discussion have never been bad things, however, false hope and blind insistence for whatever is newest can be. Let the adds run, the awareness of therapies communicated and good discussions with your practitioner engaged. My two cents. Thanks for letting me chime in. God Bless!

   replyreport
5. 59

   angel4967posted 11 years ago

   What I find ridiculous is when one of these commercials lists the side effects.  If you listen closely some of those side effects seem to be worse than the original condition the drug is treating.   As a writer I believe in freedom of the press and freedom of choice but care could be exercised when promoting these drugs.  Some companies are sensative to the child issue and have their products advertised later at night when those kids should be in bed.  How do you deal with your young child watching a show at say 7:30 pm and a female hygene product is advertised?  Yes parents should take responsibility for what their kids watch but it's next to impossible to sensor the commercials.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

   I am opposed to the television ads. While the drugs in question may require a prescription from a Doctor, people are constantly asking doctors to let them try the different drugs. Some doctors give in and prescribe the drugs that may not be of benefit.
   
   Doctors are visited by pharmaceutical representatives and are briefed on the new drugs, given samples to try on appropriate patients and given literature to read and review.
   
   I have asked my doctors about some of the drugs and he said they were not right for me and then tells me why. I do not go doctor shopping to get the drug of the day.
   
   Furthermore, there are many older generic drugs that treat many of the ailments, and they are a lot cheaper.
   
   The money saved on television advertising could be used to lower operating costs or reduce the price of the newer medications. I really do not think sales would be adversely affected.
   
   Each company is free to have his own website and other sites, such as Web MD provide useful information about the drugs. Also, I have no problems with print ads, especially in magazines, where all the details are listed on the next page

   replyreport