Should pharmaceutical companies be allowed to advertise on television?

[shawn703]

Poll question: Should pharmaceutical companies be allowed to advertise on television?

Their target audience appears to be the average consumer, who more than likely should not be making a decision about what prescription they should be taking. It seems to me these advertisements only lead to higher drug costs, doctor shopping, and more risk of health problems caused by taking unneeded meds.

Or should we be defending freedom of speech on this type of thing?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. I saw a commercial last night

about a guy with NPH, which is what my dad had. If I had known about the drug, or had it been available, he would not have suffered the last few years of his life, nor died the way he did. Say what you want about the pharmaceutical companies, some people are alive today because of them. I know that is not a popular opinion here on DU, but it is my take.

[shawn703]

8. But should the ads be targeted toward us or toward physicians?

I don't see any problems targeting advertisements at physicians, such as in medical journals or maybe a health channel of some kind - but is it a good idea to put the commercials on Monday Night Football?

[stevebreeze]

42. why should they even be allowed to advertise to physicians?

The only way to do this is to have a reputable neutral source provide information to Dr's.

[Midlodemocrat]

61. I honestly don't have a problem with it.

I don't think that reputable physicians would prescribe something that was contraindicated or dangerous and I think it sometimes gives people a feeling of power in being informed. JMO.

[cattleman22]

75. What about the people who do not go to a doctor because they think

there is nothing the doctor can do? These ads seem to be targetted more at people who could have an increased quality of life if they took these prescriptions.

[skylarmae]

10. shouldn't the dr.s be responsible for diagnosing these

medical problems. Maybe this drug wasn't available when your father was suffering. You make a very valid point though. JMO

[Midlodemocrat]

64. Oh, I totally agree that the doctor should be diagnosing

...I am simply referring to people 'suggesting' to their physicians. Also, sometimes a patient can go months without seeing their doctors, simply because they are feeling well. I don't think a phone call to a doctor inquiring about the possibility of the patient using the new medicine is out of line.

[xultar]

11. What about the DR. They didn't know or didn't tell you? See that

is a major problem Drs getting Drug Company kickbacks.
When I go to the Dr they have the commercial pads and pens etc.

What I think is if a Dr. doesn't get a kickback then they aren't goint to tell their patients. That is bad medicne all the way around.

[Midlodemocrat]

58. Actually, speaking as someone

who is in the 'biz', so to speak, not an MD, but I have worked in the field previously, doctors are really under the gun as well as pharmaceutical companies for accepting any kinds of gifts/bribes. Federal law prohibits pharmaceutical companies from entertaining prescribing entities. Now, that is not to say it doesn't happen.

As far as healthcare goes, I think it is every person's duty to be a responsible consumer. If you see an ad on TV that you think might benefit you, I just don't see a problem with approaching your MD with the information. I don't see a reputable doctor prescribing something that is contraindicated, or just won't work.

Some of the newer drugs that have been advertised have been extremely successful in treating patients, Viagra, Levitra, as well as the Alzheimer's drugs. Viagra and Levitra are prescribed for 'quality of life issues', in addition to guys with ED, for example someone who suffers from hypogonadism, or low testosterone. I really don't see a problem with making the information available to the public. I don't see the difference between advertising for pharmaceutical companies and advertising for beer. but that is JMO.

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. These commercials also

misinform about drugs like Vioxx. And imagine if Thalidomide had been advertised on TV.

Do you really think the risk of harm is worth it?

There are far better ways to educate yourself than by watching commercials. My dad had Parkinson's and there wasn't a book or website available that my family hadn't read and studied while he was alive. Surely you are also aware of these other sources.:)

[Midlodemocrat]

60. Oh, yes, I am very informed

simply by nature of my job, but I was referencing people who might not be. Also, it is the nature of television to advertise the most recent advertisements and I think even an informed consumer could go for months without knowledge of new drugs hitting the marketplace.

[Razorback_Democrat]

63. Use the internet, find a GOOD doctor!

too much $$$$$$$$$$$ is spent on marketing period, it drives the costs of meds up tremendously.

Pharma sales reps shouldn't be allowed to buy food or gifts for docs and their staffs either.

[Sanity Claws]

2. Speech can be limited by

time, manner, and place.
They should be allowed to advertise only to physicians who have the qualifications to prescribe the medication in question.
All other advertising is in effect an attempted end-run around the treating physician.

[Midlodemocrat]

5. I disagree.

I think a well educated consumer carries over into the doctor's office. With managed care expediting visits the way it does, sometimes the patient really does need to be pro active in their health. I know for me, I diagnosed my exhaustion as a drug reaction after extensive testing. One day, I forgot to take it and lo and behold, I was actually peppy! The exhaustion, however, was never indicated in the prescribing information as a side effect, and so the doctor never thought it was related.

[Sanity Claws]

16. One can be well-informed without ads

Ads merely tell you that a product exists and that you should buy it. As for your example, you must have learned about the side effect from doing an internet search or reading the enclosure that lists side effects. The tv ads certainly didn't tell you.
I agree that patients should be informed about their health but being barraged with slick commercials is not the same as being informed.

[Squatch]

18. And you wouldn't know which drugs to research without ads...

[Sanity Claws]

21. You would research the medical condition

It then lists commonly prescribed meds. Then you go to the Physicians Desk Reference

[Squatch]

22. Are physicians desk references available readily to consumers?

Are they free?

Why, no they are not:

https://www.pdr.net/pdrnet/librarian/PFPUI/AA1vMT3yboJJC/ND_CP/Home/CS/B60136/ND_T/PDRnet780/ND_P/HomeMenu/DUPLICATIONSHIELDSYNC/472A14/ND_B/PDRnet/PFActionId/pf.ShowPage/PageId/pdrnet.Login

[Liberal Veteran]

34. A 30-second tv spot or an ad in Time is hardly equivalent to the PDR.

Or Facts and Comparisons or Mosby's RX or A to Z Drugs.

Still, all of that information is available to people online anyway and those that aren't are available in the public library through the same PDR, Merck Manual, Drug Facts and Comparison, and dozens of other books that give in depth information on the drug.

A 5 second google search brought me to this site:

http://www.rxlist.com

This site gives me the drug monograph, including chemical structure, clinical pharmacology, clinical indications, contraindications/interactions, patient information, side effects...etc.

All in more detail than the average patient uses anyway (much like the PDR which is nothing more than a collection of the drug package handout the pharmaceutical company provides).

Expensive DTC advertising is certainly not good patient education.

[Squatch]

37. See response 31

I do not favor limiting advertising, but I do favor limits on price gouging.

[Midlodemocrat]

66. I don't think anyone is advocating that it is.

...in my experience, often when a patient makes reference to the drug, the physician is not able to prescribe it, but other times, it is a viable option. I don't see any problem with an individual calling up their physician and asking about the availability of use for that particular patient.

[Liberal Veteran]

72. And I think we can do better than those tv spots.

Like maybe teach people how to use the library/internet as a resource for looking into better treatments for what ails them.

I don't think that 30 second tv spots are even remotely adequate for even finding out about new treatment for a condition.

There are MUCH MUCH MUCH better resources for disease/condition management and would not only go further in getting people the treatment they need, but would be cheaper and more effective than silly commercials of people having picnics and parties now that they are taking drug x. Indeed, a lot of those commericials are pushing a drug that isn't better or more effective than much cheaper drugs out on the market already.

In the final analysis DTC advertising (particularly tv and radio spots) is a piss-poor and VERY EXPENSIVE substitution for patient education and just adds to every spiralling price of pharmaceutical drugs.

[Midlodemocrat]

76. Oh, I agree with you that a thirty second spot is not

... totally adequate. But, not everyone has internet access and a lot of these spots are aimed at the geriatric population. It could be months between doctor's visits for them and perhaps a well timed phone call about a new drug that they saw on TV might help whatever their affliction is.

A doctor is not going to be able to go through all his files and re-prescribe the new drug for everyone, so it could be a long time for one of these patients until they are tried on the new drug.

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. Yes they are

I have several. The most recent one was in the give away pile at my local public library.

I bought the best one I have at a garage sale.

They aren't that hard to acquire.

[Sanity Claws]

85. They're at a public library

[Midlodemocrat]

65. I agree with you that the ad

does not do all the 'informing'. I am just stating that I think a patient who suffers from a condition that is informed via television about the advantages of a new drug is not a bad thing. No reputable physician will prescribe something that is contraindicated or dangerous.

Also, some of these ads really do target the geriatric population, who often don't have internet access or money to purchase PDR's. which I think even at Costco can run upwards of $50. Additionally, unless you purchase the updates, they are outdated in four months.

JMO.

[Liberal Veteran]

78. That's a scattershot approach....it strikes me as inadequate.

Not to mention that NEARLY ALL of the drugs advertised on tv are either:

a) New to the market
b) Copycats of a current drug (think Vioxx and Celebrex)
c) The priciest drug on the market
d) Not necessarily better or more effective than something on the market for 20 years, just NEW.

Trying to equate these very expensive and very inadequate ads as public service announcements is not intellectually honest.

Take my own example as a person with advanced HIV disease. At least once a week I hit up the various websites that concern themselves with treatment and management of the disease and it's side effects. I also read newspaper articles about new drugs that are approved for my condition. I have taken responsibility to educate myself and am doing a pretty good job of it without the need for a primetime tv commercial telling me to ask my doctor if the latest NNRTI/Fusion Inhibitor/NRTI/PI is right for me.

Also, in some cases the advertisements can be detrimental. Take for example the flap that you probably never heard of, where DTC marketing in gay publication always showed the hot, hot, muscular guy mountainclimbing/skiing/biking etc, advertising a certain HIV drug. Giving false impressions that if you take this drug, you'll actually feel like doing any of those things.

Here is a link to a particular article on that issue:

http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/beta/b37/b37drugads.html

I don't want you to get the impression that I am against an informed consumer/patient. Indeed, I think that these ads are an expensive and counterproductive to really getting people to take responsibility for their health and education about their illnesses and treatments. There are FAR FAR more effective ways to educate people than these piss poor excuses for information that we see on television. And they are probably a lot less expensive too.

[Midlodemocrat]

81. I see your point

...but you are an educated/informed patient. My point is that as a lot of these drugs are targeted at the geriatric population, (think Vioxx, Viagra, and the Alzheimer's drug whose name escapes me,) that sometimes these folks are NOT as well informed and their only source for information is the TV. I see nothing wrong with a patient calling their physician and asking whether or not a particular drug that they have seen on the telly is appropriate for their particular situation. It could be months down the road for a particular patient to see a doctor for what ails them, and the new drug does have the potential to do some good.

[Liberal Veteran]

84. But one must ask the question...

What good does it do in the long run if the advertising prices the drug out of the market of the elderly?

Or if the insurance company will not approve a particular drug in it's formulary because the costs are so high due to excessive marketing of the drug (as opposed to high costs due to manufacturing or R&D).

I take the side that unrestrained advertising and marketing by pharmaceutical companies is contributing directly to the problem of rising health care/drug costs in our country.

The costs of advertising are not being limited to the drug companies. They are being passed along to the consumer in the form of extremely high prescription prices. This in turn affects the very elderly that COULD be helped by those drugs if they weren't out of reach of their budget.

A new analysis provided by the managed care industry reports that from 1999 to 2000, prescriptions written for the top 50 most heavily advertised drugs rose 24.6 percent, compared to 4.3 percent for all other drugs combined. It also has given the industry a shield by claiming advertising is a necessary expense whenever someone challenges the fact that the pharmaceutical companies are simply put, the most profitable industries in the nation.


While the overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53 percent - the second deepest dive in profits the Fortune 500 has taken in its 47 years 1 - the top 10 U.S. drug makers increased profits by 33 percent.

So it begs the question: Is the benefit of direct to consumer advertising that gets a few people to call their doctor to ask if Crankistatin is right for them really offset by the costs that are passed along to consumers and possibly even pricing the medication out of reach of those who have to pay out of pocket?

I think not. I think we need to overhaul the entire pharmaceutical industry. They are gouging us at every turn and DTC advertising is just a part of that equation that needs to be dealt with in this country.

Those are costs that passed directly to the consumer.

[Squatch]

3. Consumers should be informed about their choices

including knowing what alternatives exists to their current medication.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. Probably the internet serves that purpose more cheaply than a 30 sec...

...spot on TV.

[Squatch]

9. As capital ventures, pharm companies should be

allowed to advertise their product to their consumers, in whatever manner they see fit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. Advertising is NOT about informing consumers

It is about selling a product.

[xultar]

12. I get online to do my reserch about condidtions and drugs...

advertising is usually filled with lies and bullshit anyway.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Yeah...remember the original Claritin commercials?

30 seconds of "Blue Skies shining on me...nothing but blue skies"....and eventually mentioned the product without ONCE mentioning what the fucking drug was indicated for.

It wasn't until like the third or fourth wave of commericials before the commercials actually got around to mentioning it was for allergies.

And a 30 second commericial was hardly useful for "educating" the customer to begin with.

There are cheaper and more effective methods to inform consumers than flashy expensive and information light commericials that tell you really very little about the drug.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Nope....the extreme gouging started about the time drugs were allowed...

...to be advertised direct to consumer.

[diamond14]

15. the money spent on advertising could provide OUR ENTIRE NATION

with all the drugs necessary.....


it's really obscene that companies making INSULIN are using those profits to pump viagra, and DEDUCT those costs from their taxes, rather than using the profits from INSULIN to improve their product and enhance their Quality Control/Quality Assurance in their INSULIN manufacturing operations....before advertising, that's what they did...NOW, it's really obscene, and people are DYING from the lack of QA/QC and poor manufacturing processes....

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. I second that thought!

I know I am NOT the only one here who is sick of paying for these stupid ads on TV with the increased cost of medications.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. The average consumer cannot make a decision, they can only

ask a doctor for his or her advice. A competent and ethical doctor will only prescribe a drug if it is indicated for the individual's condition. Just asking for it shouldn't be enough. Doctor shopping could become a problem, but only for the most persistent. That could happen with or without advertising.

Consider viagra. Erectile dysfunction is symptomatic of more serious health conditions that the patient may not even realize he has. If a viagra ad gets a man to the doctor for a full check up it could uncover a problem sooner rather than when it is too late. Same can be said of other drugs.

I have issues with big Pharma, but advertising isn't one of them.

[ulTRAX]

13. DTC vs PSAs

There's a BIG difference between Direct to Consumer ads that are designed to push consumers toward the high profit drugs and neutral Public Service Announcements that encourage consumers to be aware of health problems. I favor the latter.

[Pacifist Patriot]

38. I do too, but who funds PSAs?

[Midlodemocrat]

68. You are right on.

No reputable physician will advocate a drug if it is not indicated. I think advertising sometimes empowers those who are feeling poorly and brings to the forefront an option the physician might not have considered.

Additionally, I think calling the physician tomorrow when your next appointment is in March to ask about a new drug is not a bad thing. The physician isn't going to go through his records to determine who might benefit from the new drug, and switching people over could take a full year from the patient's last visit to the MD.

[TWiley]

14. All televised Brand Names cost more.

I would assume that the high cost of marketing would add something to the cost of the product.

There appears to be a direct correlation between cost and advertising.

[Bronco69]

17. Most of those commercials don't make sense anyhow.

"Ask your doctor if Zoloft is right for you." WTF is Zoloft, and how can I ask my doctor if I don't even know what the hell it is.

If those companies are going to advertise, shouldn't they at least be required to tell you what the drug does?

[Sanity Claws]

19. I agree

The commercial are slick and are supposed to be appeal to one on an emotional level. They do not inform

[Squatch]

20. Pharm companies are in the business to make money

and to make money, they need to advertise their products.

[Solon]

25. even if that means paying twice as much for the drug in question?

Is it really worth that much, just because you ask for a drug from a doctor, because you saw it on TV, doesn't mean he'll prescribe it to you, so how much usefulness are these ads anyway.

[Squatch]

27. Free Market Economy

is an idealized market where all economic decisions by participants are free of coercive influence.

[Solon]

46. The Free Market is a myth n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

29. That kind of unrestrained capitalism is contributing to the crisis in..

...health care.

Do you honestly believe that reason health care and pharmaceutical prices as well as medical insurance is outpacing inflation at somewhere between twice the rate of inflation and ten times the rate of inflation is because of natural increases in costs on the side of the pharma companies?

Pharmaceutical companies are making record profits now. Many of those profits aren't on anything other than copycat drugs which are only slightly different than one already on the market.

Yes they are in business to make money, but at the same they driving America into healthcare crisis. Part of that crisis is pharmaceutical companies pouring money into pushing drugs directly to the consumer through advertising and the costs are passed directly to the customer.

[Squatch]

31. Pharm occupies a unique niche in which consumers have to

buy their product. You get sick, you have to buy drugs.

I would much more favor a cap on drug prices (taking into consideration R&D, expenses, etc) than outright restrictions on advertising.

Place a cap on drug prices, companies are forced to cut expenses or reduce profit margins.

They don't want to reduce profit margins, so they cut expenses.

An expense is advertising.

Advertising may be cut.

QED

[Liberal Veteran]

40. An admirable, if ultimately naive approach to the problem.

As a pharmacy technician myself (and a person who is dependent on over $15000 a year in prescription medications just to live and that's just 3 drugs) I think we really need to reign in the pharmaceutical companies, through both price controls and direct to consumer advertising.

I have no problem with drug companies advertising to health care professionals and providing information online to consumers or through pamphlets in the doctors office and that strikes me as a reasonable way to approach advertising.

High budget primetime television spots and radio spots that barely cover the indication of the drug and a 2 second side effect in ultra fast speed are just increasing the price of drugs to the consumers and contributing to the healthcare expenditures in this country.

[Squatch]

43. I once interviewed for a position in pharm sales

with J&J. Ultimately, I declined.

One of the "benefits" of the job was a nearly unlimited expense account with which to wine and dine doctors to "advertise" the drugs. That's been curtailed a bit, last I heard, but I'm sure thats's still a huge part of getting a drug's name out there.

[Liberal Veteran]

47. But didn't you say you were totally for the free market?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot put price controls on the pharmaceutical companies AND be for a free market economy.

How do you reconcile the restrictions on pharm companies pricing with free market economics while at the same time railing against other restrictions on how pharm companies are allowed to advertise saying that you are against restricting the economics of the free market.

You are trying to have it both ways.

Either you are for restrictions on what the pharmaceutical companies can and cannot do (whether it be how they are allowed to price their medication or how they are allowed to advertise their products). You cannot have it both ways and pretend to sing the praises of the free market economy. It's a contradiction in terms.

Hell, I think we need to do both. We need to limit the amount of money they charge for a drug with regard to production/R&D and limit the ways in which they are allowed to advertise the products.

[Squatch]

49. No, I did not

The free market concept has limitations. I've expressed those limitations.

[Liberal Veteran]

51. And I think one of those limitations should be in advertising.

You don't see cigarette companies being allowed to peddle their LEGAL products on tv.

You seem to believe that DTC pharmarceutical advertising is a good thing. I disagree. The information those spots provide can be easily made to consumers who want to find it without the expense involved in high budget tv advertising campaigns.

The expense of DTC marketing directly impacts the price of pharmaceuticals in this country and is contributing significantly to the high cost of health care both in insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses.

Price controls and limits in DTC advertising are both legitimate and effective ways to reign in health care costs that are spiralling out of control in this country.

[Squatch]

53. Well, alright, then. Good discussion!

:toast:

[Midlodemocrat]

70. I agree. This is a great discussion!!! n/t

...and no flaming!!! even with very disparate opinions. Kudos, DUers!

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. Do you remember when

lawyers could not advertise on TV?

[Liberal Veteran]

67. Yep...Still wish it was like that.

I first started hating those lawyer commercials when I saw a commercial trying to get women who had used Norplant to sue the pharmaceutical company for whatever.

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. So what was the deal with that?

Why was it not okay for lawyers to advertise? And what happened to change that?

[Phentex]

23. That's what I was going to say. I'm okay with them IF they say what they..

are for. Many of them talk about a drug, but you can't tell if it's for arthritis or heartburn! How are you supposed to ask your doctor if you don't know what the drug is for?

[idiosyncratic]

35. If they tell you what it is for, they also have to give side effects

This is what some of those sound like:




A current ad gives one of the side effects as "spleenic rupture."

Does that really mean what I think it does . . . your spleen could rupture?! Pity the poor person to whom that happened during the drug testing phase.

[Orangepeel]

32. that's to avoid listing side effects

If the company says both the name of the drug AND what it is supposed to cure, they have to list all the side effects. If they just do one or the other, they don't.

So, there are three types of DTC ads -- ones that say, 1) "ask your doctor about new cures for acne" with no name of a drug (or side effects), 2) ads that say, "ask your doctor about Prolex" with no mention of a disease (or side effects), and 3) ads that say, "new Prolex can cure persistent acne" (which must list the side effects).

Personally, I support the ability of drug companies to engage in 1 and 3, because I think that consumers do better with more information than less. There are restrictions in place (i.e., the need for a prescription) that filter access to the medication, and, in some cases, may actually encourage people to go to their doctor.

[davidinalameda]

26. let them spend some of those obscene profits

on advertising

I for one can honestly say I've never been swayed by the advertising

[xultar]

28. They aren't spending profits my friend...they are spending our $$$

let's B4R here.

[Squatch]

30. Looks like somebody needs a Business 101 lesson

If they were spending profits on advertising, well...they wouldn't be profits, would they? In business parlance, that's called an expense. Profit is what's left over from income once expenses are deducted.

[xultar]

33. And you can be DAMN sure our money goes into

the coffers to pay the expense...that is why the shit is so expensive.

They aren't gonna let anything get in the way of their effin profits, now are they.

Whaddaya say class.....


NOooooooo! Misses XULTAR!

Good Children...next lesson.

[Squatch]

36. Exactly.

And the reason they are able to maintain those high profit margins is because consumers here have continued to pay the higher prices. Consumers can't not buy the products, so the old methods of boycott, etc are of no use.

Goverment control should come in the form of price caps on the drugs themselves, not through limiting advertising.

[xultar]

39. Exacto-mundo! I'm of to Canada her I come...doo dahhh doo dahh n/t

[cattleman22]

77. Many advertisements are for optional prescription drugs.

Consumers can boycott drugs for allergies or erectile dysfunction, etc.


c

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Only if they allow smokes and booze to be advertised

Come on ..... this is not a hard question. The ads serve no purpose whatsoever.

And while we're talking about ads ...... what about such companies as Archer Daniels Midland, and United Technologies and Boeing, etc. When was the last time anyone bought, for example, their own Boeing product? Who are these ads aimed at?

So, no, advertising on venues aimed at consumers should be for consumer products and services. Let the drug ads go to medical journals.

[Liberal Veteran]

50. Sure they do...

They allow the pharmaceutical company to increase the price of drug and gouge the public by hiding behind the "expense" of marketing the drug.

[patrice]

44. Simply put . . . NO! n/t

[ChairOne]

45. Yes. With conditions....

It's a free speech issue - and I'll be damned if I give up on America because of big pharm.

That said, there are of course massive public health and welfare issues involved. Moreover, I'm fucking sick of corporations being allowed to run rampant and unchecked over the idiot population of this country. So I suggest something like the following:

(1) A full third (in both time and words) of every commercial shall be devoted to things like: risks, warnings, only certified docs can tell if the drug is right for you, and crap like that.

(2) Pharm ads MAY NOT be ruled out in suits against the pharm. (Example: if there's somethin wrong with the drug, you damn well better both know about, and disclose).

(3) Limited play during teen-tv time. Parenting is hard enuff as it is - fuck if I need my 13 year old girl looking at a pharm diet pill ad...

(4) Ad content shall only be directed towards groups of people legally able to make medical decisions for themselves or others. No pharm version of Joe Camel.

(5) Any more?

(6) Prominent mention shall be made of commonly available generic versions. No more fleecing.

[Desertrose]

48. NO. Hell no.

All those lovely idiotic ads are intended to do is lead people into taking things they probably don't need.

How many docs won't go ahead and prescribe it if the patient asks? puhleese.

I grew up in a drugstore family( back in the 60's)...I saw how the salesmen pitched to the docs even then. The MDs, pharmacies and pharmacorps are all working together very nicely thank you. You think the folks who are actually taking and having to PAY for all these chemicals benefit? Think again folks.

Doesn't anyone else remember when we were NOT a society who took chemicals to get through life?? when you didn't need to medicate for every little event or pain in your life?? (I am not talking about major lifesaving drugs- cardio/BP/diabetes/neural diseases etc)

Awfully convenient for these companies to have so many people need their happy little drugs, isn't it? Perhaps a few more commericals convincing people that they can't get through life without them is in order.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

[Midlodemocrat]

69. The prescribing laws are very different now

...no reputable doctor will prescribe if it is contraindicated or dangerous.

[DainBramaged]

52. Crestor is still being advertised on cable

I don't know if it's because of previous ad 'buys', but the grassy fields and calls to ask my doctor if Crestor is right for me is simply propaganda. I stopped taking Celebrex (God I ache now) but the only reason I was taking it was because it worked.

[realvirginian]

55. Of course they should

Everyone should have that right.

[arwalden]

73. Advertising OTC Stuff ONLY Would Be Nice.

[cattleman22]

74. The key is what drugs are being advertised?

Most of the drugs I have seen advertised are optional prescription drugs. I have never seen a required drug like an antibiotic advertised. Rather drugs for allergies or drugs for arthritis pain are advertised. These advertisements seem to be aimed at people who otherwise would not see a doctor about this condition.

[Midlodemocrat]

82. I think sometimes some of these drugs

are 'quality of life' drugs, like Viagra. You don't need it to live, but it would make life really unpleasant for the poor guy who needed it to be with his S/O. That is why they DTC advertise. Additionally, I think sometimes those of us who aren't big complainers don't realize that a problem we have can be fixed until it hits you in the face, or in this case, the TV screen.

[JohnLocke]

79. No (nt)

[BluePatriot]

80. Not just no, but hell no! (nt)

[skippythwndrdog]

83. When confronted with a question like this...

...I ask myself, "Why should drug companies be prohibited from advertising?" I couldn't independently come up with a reason to restrict their 1st Amendment rights, so I voted accordingly.