Its time for another ban on television advertising. In 1970 Richard Nixon signed legislation officially banning cigarette advertising on television and radio. Everyone knew that greed was the primary motivation of the tobacco industry and the health risks related to the use of their products were great but warnings had been displayed on the products packaging since 1966 and were well into the process of being routinely ignored. Just being informed of side effects was not enough to dissuade the public from using the product and the broad magnitude of television advertising was attracting generations of citizens to take up the addicting habit. Now there is a sinister new health threat emanating from the screen-direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. When we turn on our television sets today we are confronted with an onslaught of prescription drug ads aimed directly at the general public pre-empting and marginalizing the experience and advice of trained clinicians. And these medical ads are cleverly produced telling little stories with homespun humor or emotional intrigue. Its 21st century Madison Avenue and its extremely rewarding to the profit margins of company shareholders. The tobacco companies knew the power of television and the pharmaceutical giants learned from it. But the Tobacco industry leaders were at a decided disadvantage in their relationship with the medical community. In the 1960s physicians were beginning to herald a connection to smoking and preventable disease and cigarette manufacturers were seen as wolves at the door of public health. Large pharmaceutical prescription drug cartels have a publicly perceived attachment to medicine so they have the ability to cloak themselves in a kind of medical respectability and in doing so can purchase the advantage of being wolves in sheeps clothing which they began doing as far back as the mid 80s. Their largest obstacle was that they were required by law to sell their wares to doctors not directly to patients-a kind of last line of defense. The power and wealth of the drug industry dwarfs anything the tobacco companies could ever match and in 1992 the American Medical Association inexplicably dropped its opposition to direct-to-consumer advertising. Many wonder who in the AMA thought this was a good idea but its amazing what an army of lawyers and bribed politicians can accomplish. Sadly today the DNA-altering and immune system destroying chemicals being hawked on television rival many of the toxins cooked up in Chernobyl and just as with tobacco the warnings and side effects are routinely dismissed. The steady, subliminal and repeated nature of television drug advertising is indoctrinating an entire class of medical Manchurian Candidates predictably marching into doctors offices demanding the largely untested snake oil thats been peddled on their screens. The only two countries on the planet that allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising are the US and New Zealand and for good reason. The practice is little more than biological experimentation on human beings by effectively bypassing the middlemen who are the doctors and other health professionals whose primary motivation is their patients health not their money. Of course all the ads have the usual disclaimer that says: ask your doctor but after all that advertising patients are more likely not to take no for an answer and just go doctor shopping until they get the new, improved miracle drug. Taking tobacco advertising off television was a good thing and today only about twenty percent of the American population lights up. Some older Americans remember cigarette machines in hospital lobbies, ash trays in emergency rooms and doctors with their feet up on their desk puffing on a Chesterfield. We didnt know any better then when greedy industries were selling us things that were bad for us but today we do-or at least we should. People should be up in arms over all this dangerous drug advertising on television and they should demand that the drug industry be held to the same standard as tobacco companies.
As long as they are prescription drugs the medical profession is not being bypassed. Now if the members of the profession are willing to abdicate their professional responsibilities that is another issue entirely.
I didn't do a good job of writing on that piece. This is better: By the time US doctors get through medical school they already have their work cut out for them because Americans are among the sickest people in the developed world. In the United States an aging population is now coming to grips with the fact that decades of tobacco use, alcohol and drug abuse, poor diet and lack of exercise has produced an epidemic outcome of diabetes, COPD, heart disease and a host of indigenous cancers many of which are preventable by screening, lifestyle and diet changes. Todays physicians are not only swamped with patients due to a doctor shortage but they are now faced with an industry that is making billions by mining the desperation and suffering of the public for no other purpose other than to enrich itself. Corporate drug cartels otherwise known as Big Pharma have been flooding television with advertising to the extent that they now dominate commercial air time. In 1970 Richard Nixon signed legislation banning cigarette advertising on television and radio. By the 1970s tobacco commercials had become so ubiquitous on the tube that doctors across the country began ringing alarm bells that these ads were like a siren song for new smokers and warnings on the packaging had been routinely ignored since 1966. Prior to 1992 the American Medical Association opposed direct-to-consumer drug advertising because they pre-empt and dilute the advice of personal physicians who are the first line of defense for their patients. In 1992 apparently influenced by a requirement by the FDA that DTC ads inform the public of possible negative side effects, the AMA caved to pressure from pharmaceutical company lawyers. Apparently the doctors forgot about the lesson they learned about tobacco advertising. In 2015 the AMA once again voted to oppose these ads but two decades of damage has already been done and today direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising has reached a television saturation point that equals or exceeds tobacco advertising in its heyday during the 1960s. And some of the products are far more dangerous than tobacco because the pharmaceutical industry is essentially using American consumers as guinea pigs for their next big money-making breakthroughs. The chemical make- up and molecular structure of the ingredients in some of these high tech potions can compromise the human immune system, block essential nutrients, destroy liver function and introduce lethal mutations into DNA. A consumer could easily duplicate the effect of these dangerous, last-resort drugs by moving to a retirement community in Chernobyl. The drugs are cleverly pushed by the same Madison Avenue screen advertising that was designed to make cigarette smoking appealing to the public and they are a huge money maker for the pharmaceutical industry. While no one, including doctors or patients, is arguing against pharmaceutical research, serious concerns are being raised about the motives behind all this advertising. We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to researchers like Alexander Fleming (penicillin) and Jonas Salk (polio vaccine) but these dedicated individuals were driven to improve the human condition not by corporate profits. There are only two countries in the world that allow DTC prescription drug advertising, the US and New Zealand-and for good reason. It subverts the intent of the do-no-harm aspect of the Hippocratic Oath by bypassing the doctor as a first advisor in personal health matters. Busy doctors are now confronted with increasing numbers of medical Manchurian candidates demanding snake oil thats been peddled to them on their TV sets and if the doctor says no some are likely to go doctor shopping until they get it. These ads very coyly turn doctors into parents and patients into nagging children. The history of ethical medicine and drug companies is a long and storied saga of experimentation and exploitation and a lot of people who trusted the system have been poisoned in the process. Hippocrates is losing and PT Barnham is winning. The pharmaceutical giants disguise themselves as champions of consumers rights-something the cigarette manufacturers tried but failed at. Its time for reasonable people to put the brakes on this travesty and lobby congress to put an end to something that is making suckers out of all of us.
There are pros and con's. My husband is a doctor and it is dangerous when his uneducated patients present demanding a drug they heard about, IMO.
I help run a now large family owned company specific to healthcare and you should know that the Pharmaceutical Rep's come into your husbands practice or office with some new drug and they tell him....."OK....we know you write about 2000 scripts a month for the currently well tested and long time in use Cholesterol Drug called....."And I am just going to make this name up.....Fatastatin".....but we have this new drug now called..."SIDEEFFECTIN"....and if you can write 1000 scripts a month for the next 3 months of SIDEEFFECTIN we will give you a free trip for 2 to the Bahamas!!!! Of course the Doctor doesn't tell his patients that taking Sideefectin might have such side effects such as anal leakage, heart attack, stroke, death...etc. AA
Just to add the sad thing is unlike Pharmacists.....Doctors are not required to take continual education courses. Doctors in general know very little about drugs and of course this is why it is called....PRACTICING MEDICINE!!! AA
And these are the people prescribing my medicine??? Damn doctors practicing stone age medicine. Why, the AIs can't come here soon enough.
Wga the Pharmaceutical Rep's give all sorts of bonus gifts for a Doctor to prescribe new drugs even if an already well established drug is on the market. Trips, Money, Motor Bikes...you name it. AA
Yup, money under the table. That's the way of the world. So, why can't I get anyone to give me money??? LOL!
Jesus, I hope that's not happening. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the majority of doctors have their patient's best interests at heart. Due to a shortage most doctors are overworked and they may feel pressured to give in to pestering patients who come in asking for these drugs. This is why they should think twice about patients who self-diagnose themselves and try to use the doctor as little more than a go-between to self-prescribe pain relief medication.
Wrong, at least in FL. Here, MDs have to take 40 hours of CE every two years to maintain their medical license. Pharmacists only have to take 30 hours of CE every two years to maintain their licenses. http://www.continuingeducation.com/medicine/state-ce-requirements/florida http://www.continuingeducation.com/pharmacy/state-ce-requirements/florida
The majority of doctors probably started out with patient health uppermost in their list of concerns. Once the reality of the American healthcare system sets in that changes to how fast can I get rid of this chump and move on to the next payday.
you can always buy long term call options on the drug companies' stocks, since you are so sure that they are so profitable.
Sorry but if you think advertising exists for the purpose of educating the prospective purchaser you are sadly confused.
Television advertising is powerful because it interlopes directly into the home of a viewer that is occupied by watching something. If salesmen knocked on your door every ten minutes all day long while you were home how long would you put up with that? There is a repetitive nature to these ads that can subliminally mesmerize a viewer without the viewer even being conscious of it. This is how products are sold and many people buy them without even realizing why they want them. The question we should be asking is do we want medicine sold this way? There are huge sums of money at stake so pharmaceutical corporations are going to use this advertising for as long as they can get away with it. Drugs are one thing that should be regulated and so should advertising to sell them. Just putting a warning at the end is not enough because the ads are crafted to visually and emotionally draw the viewer into an entertaining story. That's what the viewer remembers, not the warning.
