Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Things that shouldn't be advertised on TV

By reshippie in Op-Ed
Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 11:12:05 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

Within the last few years the US government, probably the FCC, has begun allowing prescription(sp?) drugs to be advertised on TV. As if there already wasn't enough crap on TV, now there are ads for things that you can't even go the store and buy.


All of these new ads specifically state that they require a doctor's prescription. I believe that a doctor knows(or at least should know) more about prescription drugs than a patient. So why is it that it is now ok to advertise these things, and have under informed people demanding pills from their docotors.

There are just some things that just shouldn't be advertised on TV. Doctors, Lawyers, schools, and Prescription Drugs come to mind right away. And while I'm at it, I'll bring up the question of why beer can be advertised on tv, but not liquor?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by reshippie


Display: Sort:
Things that shouldn't be advertised on TV | 43 comments (38 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Yeah! And... (3.00 / 4) (#1)
by greyrat on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:22:43 PM EST

...why the hell do I care if farmers can get better results with new Roundup(tm) on thier soybeans!

Get rid of those commercial too! Make room for more Taco Bell advertising!
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

ew. beer. (2.00 / 2) (#2)
by sH on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:29:25 PM EST

personally, i don't think that beer should be advertised either. that reminds me of a conversation my friends and i had when we were about 13.

it pertained to how feminine products should have their own channel to advertise and then not put them on the regular channels. maybe we should just have a commercial channel for every real channel, so that ads could still be generate revenue, and whenever one feels like seeing a commercial, they could flip to the channel... after all, sometimes commercials are cooler than real tv.

man. then that would generate BETTER commercials that were more watchable. this could be good.


Beer ad's have funny restrictions (none / 0) (#8)
by ramses0 on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 04:16:54 PM EST

Did you know that beer advertisements are never allowed to show people actually *drinking* beer?

Watch for it next time, it's kindof a cool thing to know.

--Robert
[ rate all comments , for great justice | sell.com ]
[ Parent ]
wow. (none / 0) (#16)
by sH on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 05:30:05 PM EST

I never noticed, but I can see that now that you said it...

HEY! Do they ever show it in the Bitter Beer Face commercials?!

[ Parent ]
beer drinking on tv (none / 0) (#39)
by djx on Mon Oct 16, 2000 at 05:37:20 PM EST

[snip]HEY! Do they ever show it in the Bitter Beer Face commercials?![unsnip]

Yeah, they do. But you can also see people drinking beer in some Miller Lite commercials, as well as some Coors Lights. I'm not too sure on the Bud/Bud Light ones, but they probably drink it. Mind you, the "beer" that they are drinking is most likely beer-colored carbonated water though.

-<end of transmission>-
NO CARRIER.
[ Parent ]
Oily Discharge (4.20 / 10) (#5)
by molo on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:40:03 PM EST

Within the last few years the US government, probably the FCC, has begun allowing prescription(sp?) drugs to be advertised on TV. As if there already wasn't enough crap on TV, now there are ads for things that you can't even go the store and buy.

Not only that, but most of them are disgusting since if they say what the drug is supposed to do, they have to tell you all of the yucky side effects too.

The worst one was for a perscription weight loss pill that may cause oily anal discharge. Dear god. What the hell are these people thinking?! The first time I heard that commercial, I was eating dinner. I have been scared by the experience.

--
Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn

my god (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by h2odragon on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 05:37:49 PM EST

I've heard of that, WD-40, ain't it?

[ Parent ]
More of author's opinion but... (3.80 / 5) (#6)
by retinaburn on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:51:55 PM EST

I am glad that someone posted this rant. This is one of my personal greivances with this planet. People believe that they know more about what is wrong with them than their doctor. They go to their doc and demand to be given the most newest fanciest designer drug for their ailment. Even if the doctor is aware that the drug is inappropriate or that a better drug is available they often don't turn down the patient for fear that they will loose a patient (read: customer).

This is not true in all cases, some doctors fail to keep up with modern drugs and are hesitant to perscribe new treatments but I don't believe these dinosaurs are in the majority in private practice. Hospitals are a different matter..from what I have seen.

If you don't trust your doctor's judgement get a second opinion but don't assume that because you came across some drug on Fox or TeenBeat that you have a clue about the correct treatment.

Another beef I have is with people not completing their dosage of medicine. I am guilty of this but do you know the dangers this causes. Super-bugs that are resilient to most medicines are cropping up everywhere (our local hospital was on Redirect (no new emerg. patients) due to this). This is also caused by the use of too many "designer" drugs.

I don't have a problem with Doctors, Schools. Alcohol is a toss up though. If the government says that violence on TV affects us, then so does alcohol, drugs, women, men, and FOX. Perhaps none of it should be on ...just nature programming ..and hex codes.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


politely disagreeing with a couple of points... (3.33 / 3) (#28)
by el_guapo on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 12:21:16 PM EST

"People believe that they know more about what is wrong with them than their doctor."

I specifically get outraged when a doctor who has seen me for all of 10 minutes thinks he knows more about what ills me than I do. I have been in this body for 32 years, and I assure you I know it better than anyone else on this planet, regardless of the initials that come after their name....

"Another beef I have is with people not completing their dosage of medicine. I am guilty of this but do you know the dangers this causes. Super-bugs that are resilient to most medicines"

Actually, the thing causing "super-bugs" is lame-ass doctors (note - not implying ALL are lame, I mean specifically only the lame ones) prescribing anti-biotics for things that anti-biotics cannot help with. Colds, flu, shit, even allergies. Oddly enough, this is caused by one of the things you listed in your first paragraph, ie: losing a customer. People get a sniffle from hay-fever and demand an anti-biotic "just in case".


mas cerveza, por favor mirrors, manifestos, etc.
[ Parent ]
Polite rebuttal (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by retinaburn on Mon Oct 16, 2000 at 01:57:50 PM EST

I specifically get outraged when a doctor who has seen me for all of 10 minutes thinks he knows more about what ills me than I do.

But how often do you go to your doctor and say "I have a urinary tract infection." and the doctor does tests and says "No i'm sorry you don't." and you reply "I know I have a urniary tract infection so give me the medicine." I don't do this ..but many people do. They think "It hurts here I must know what is causing it."
I agree however that doctors can be guilty of not listening closely to the patient or disregarding the patients beliefs.

[snip]prescribing anti-biotics for things that anti-biotics cannot help with[snip]
I don't see any real harm in perscribing an anti-biotic that will treat you "if" you are sick with a particular bug. If you don't have the bug then it cannot develop a resistance to it. If you do have the bug and stop taking the medication when you feel better, then you run the risk of not killing the bug completely thus allowing it to develop some resistance to it.

But then again i am not a doctor :)


I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
About those dinosaurs... (3.00 / 1) (#30)
by Alik on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 12:49:23 PM EST

They're in private practice too. In fact, you might find *more* of them there, because docs in private practice don't have the hospital admins sending them down executive summaries of current therapeutic guidelines. Private docs also have to deal with all the billing and logistical stuff on their own, which means they've got less time to go out and learn about every new drug that hits the market (especially given how fast the damn things show up).

OTOH, if you're private, that means you have direct access to drug reps who give you samples, so those docs may end up being more likely to provide a particular substance --- if it's free, why not try it?

As for being reluctant to prescribe new drugs... IMHO, that's not stupidity, that's good medicine. Look at a few of the recent "miracles": Viagra, fen-phen, and terfenadine (an allergy pill, I forget the brand name, but a fixed version is sold as Allegra). Each of these turned out to have really nasty side effects in a small part of the population which just couldn't be detected due to the limits of clinical trials. In general, unless you're going to die if you don't get the pill, medicine is not good to early adopters. I don't care how many glossy ads a company takes out in the journals, I'm not prescribing their new pill right away unless the patient understands that this stuff is really not a known entity and could fuck them up.


[ Parent ]
Valium for depression (none / 0) (#42)
by anonymous cowerd on Wed Oct 18, 2000 at 08:40:08 PM EST

People believe that they know more about what is wrong with them than their doctor.

I do not concur with your high opinion of either the diagnostic nor prescriptive skills of doctors, most particularly when it comes to psychiatric medicine. A couple of decades back I was prescribed Valium and/or its cogeners (Ativan, Xanax) by one doctor after another for treatment of depression. I could go into details here at length but I won't, but this was a very, very bad idea. Kind of like prescribing methedrine for insomnia. I did myself a big favor by concluding at last that I knew "more about what is wrong" than any of those doctors.

When you take your car down to the shop to get the brake pads renewed, the mechanic usually takes it for a spin to make sure everything feels OK. He runs the risk that, if he screwed up, he may find the brake pedal going all the way to the floor with a hiss while he's out in traffic, but most mechanics are willing to take that chance, and keep in mind that your mechanic is real lucky if he brings home a fifth the pay of a medical doctor in the U.S.A.

I propose that, in the interest of knowing what he is dealing out, before any doctor prescribes a psychiatric drug to, say, a hundred clients, each taking three or four pills a day every day for years on end, he should gulp down one or two of the pills in question himself. I do not suggest that oncologists subject themselves to chemotherapy, but psychiatric drugs that might be prescribed to walk-in patients are different in nature. At least, if doctors followed this rule, they wouldn't make gross blunders like prescribing benzodiazapines for unipolar depression, nor Ritalin (a remarkably potent stimulant) for childhood hyperactivity. This proposal is surely anathema to the AMA, but if a psychiatric drug might be so severely toxic that a doctor doesn't feel he should ingest it even once, then it is absurdly irresponsible for him to foist the same stuff off on his patients by the hundreds of thousands of doses.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

"This calm way of flying will suit Japan well," said Zeppelin's granddaughter, Elisabeth Veil.
[ Parent ]

There's a huge problem with that (none / 0) (#43)
by Karmakaze on Wed Oct 25, 2000 at 02:47:55 PM EST

I propose that, in the interest of knowing what he is dealing out, before any doctor prescribes a psychiatric drug to, say, a hundred clients, each taking three or four pills a day every day for years on end, he should gulp down one or two of the pills in question himself. I do not suggest that oncologists subject themselves to chemotherapy, but psychiatric drugs that might be prescribed to walk-in patients are different in nature. At least, if doctors followed this rule, they wouldn't make gross blunders like prescribing benzodiazapines for unipolar depression, nor Ritalin (a remarkably potent stimulant) for childhood hyperactivity. This proposal is surely anathema to the AMA, but if a psychiatric drug might be so severely toxic that a doctor doesn't feel he should ingest it even once, then it is absurdly irresponsible for him to foist the same stuff off on his patients by the hundreds of thousands of doses.

Cute, but no. Medications have different effects on different people. They are making an adjustment. You have to have something to be adjusted for them to work as intended.

For example - you are partially right - Ritalin is, in fact, a stimulant; And in most people, such as your hypothetical doctor, it acts like any other stimulant. In certain kinds of chemical hyperactivity, however, Ritalin stimulates the part of the brain that controls the hyperactivity, causing an overall calming effect. Ritalin is prescribed for childhood hyperactivity because, in many cases, it works.

The anti-depressants that have helped me in the past would at best have no effect on a non-depressed person, and would likely make them feel worse.

Would you insist that any doctor who would put a broken leg in a cast first try wearing a cast on one of his/her healthy limbs?


--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]
The serious issue here... (3.50 / 4) (#7)
by sab39 on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:52:49 PM EST

Is that, at least according to one of those TV news "expose`s" (sorry, I can't figure out how to get an accent on that e), the amount of money spent on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is the direct cause of the sharp rise in prescription drug costs in recent years (in the US, as compared to other countries). The expose` I saw showed a graph of the US versus Canada and showed the prices being approximately equal for several years until this legislation was passed, and then going up sharply in the US while carrying on along the same curve in Canada.

Now, I know better than to blindly trust a TV expose`, so I'll pose the question to K5'ers - does anyone have any information on whether this is true or not? It certainly seems plausible, but plausibility is something that TV networks have gotten very good at...

(As an aside - in response to other comments, comparing prescription drugs to crop spraying products, etc, is not completely valid. Drug companies already advertise to pharmacists and physicians - the change in the law was to make it legal for them to advertise directly to consumers. The difference is that the average consumer is going to completely ignore a crop spray ad, but if (s)he sees a prescription drug ad, (s)he may ask for it specifically (against the doctor's better knowledge) next time (s)he has the relevant condition).

Stuart.
--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amťlie

Americanism (4.33 / 6) (#9)
by tokage on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 04:18:40 PM EST

It's part of being an American, one would imagine. This sort of thing doesnt happen in other countries. It's related to our lifestyles of excess, the fast food we eat, diets high in, or sometimes comprised entirely of red meat. We have drugs which help you not feel ill when you go and stuff your face like a pig, antacids and the like. The reason the medical profession in America is so large is we're a bunch of overgrown spoiled children. We eat and live to excess, then go to the doctor so he can make it all better. People see these advertisments on TV and think "well gee, I can -really- stuff my face at the buffet now" or things like that, depending on the drug. One of their disclaimers for advertising these drugs is they tell you to ask your doctor, as in get his opinion. Most people make up their minds to try a drug no matter what though, so they don't have to give up their unhealthy lifestyle. I'll concede, however, it is sometimes difficult to live healthily in the US without a bit of effort.
We're surrounded by unhealthy products which are constantly being advertised, and are found in most places. I personally would like to cut down on the amount of meat and nasty food I eat, but it's a trade off for convenience when you're in a hurry.

Anyway, the side effects are the most amusing thing of these advertisments, like the author was saying. "In a small number of people tested, they experienced loss of consciosness, brain damage, projectile defecation, loss of motor control and death. Consult your doctor before you use this drug" Propecia is pretty funny, I think its a hair-loss prevention drug. "Women who are pregnant or may become pregnant should not handle broken tablets" It reminds me of a SNL skit with this product called Happy Fun Ball.."Happy Fun Ball accelerates to dangerous speeds..if it should break, do not touch the core..discontinue use if you feel disoriented, nausea" etc..for a kids toy;)

I always play / Russian roulette in my head / It's 17 black, or 29 red

North American (3.00 / 1) (#38)
by retinaburn on Mon Oct 16, 2000 at 04:28:41 PM EST

It's part of being an American, one would imagine.


Here in Canada we have the same problem, but perhaps not as bad. Either by sheer population or some type of sociollogical [ea]ffect.


I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
Oh, please (4.50 / 2) (#10)
by trhurler on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 04:18:53 PM EST

We really don't need more excuse to extend the federal government's power over people. They're doing a fine job as it is. You don't need to be protected from information about drugs, and anyone who does is so stupid that he is the source of his own problems. I'm sure you've heard of "personal responsibility," even though you're obviously one of those people who thinks nobody can be trusted to exercise it; the answer to your rant is that if someone cannot be entrusted with himself, then he deserves what he will get, and it is not anyone else's responsibility to protect him from his own lack of grey matter.


--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Not my point (none / 0) (#11)
by reshippie on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 04:23:19 PM EST

I'm generally against government regulations. My point is about dumb things being advertised on TV. There is already a very low s/n ratio on TV, and ads for products which need a professional recommendation just make it worse.

Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those who do DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me. :-)
[ Parent ]
What you say is true, sort of... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by trhurler on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 04:30:11 PM EST

the problem is, "solving" this problem involves the federal government putting a gun to someone's head. Yes, television sucks. That's why I don't watch it; my TV is there solely so that I can rent and watch movies and play a few video games now and then. Believe it or not, that is a credible option. Personally, I think that's what will kill television in the long run; it will become the province of the lobotomized, with even semi-educated people looking to content-on-demand services to get the bits they want without all the crap.


--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Lifestyle drugs (2.66 / 3) (#13)
by shook on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 05:01:50 PM EST

I don't have a problem with ads for "lifestyle drugs." In this I would include treatments for male pattern baldness, aids for quitting smoking, etc. These are products where people are not sick. Smoking and baldness aren't diseases to be cured. I have more of a problem with ads for things like meds for acid reflux, and mental disorders.

I disagree (3.00 / 2) (#14)
by Eimi on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 05:07:22 PM EST

I seem to be in the minority, but I think drug companies should be allowed to advertise. The reason is that there are often new drugs that do what couldn't be done before. So I may go to my doctor about X random health problem, and be told that nothing can be done about it. If a new product comes out that helps that, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow the company to say "Hey, you guys out there we X; we may be able to help you."

IMHO (2.00 / 1) (#15)
by reshippie on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 05:13:36 PM EST

It is the doctor's job to be aware of new medicines that come out. Anything that's been around long enough to have a TV commercial produced and distributed has been around long enough to appear in some medical journal.

But that's my HO.

Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those who do DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me. :-)
[ Parent ]

Not enough (none / 0) (#23)
by Eimi on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 12:25:15 AM EST

That only helps you if you go to the doctor and ask about that particular problem. And only if you do that *after* the drug in question comes out. I personally haven't been to a doctor in years. Of course, I don't have any particular health problems, but I don't think it's that unusual. I certainly don't expect my doctor to call me up and mention a new cure for something I've had for some time (say, the new hayfever things). So step one is still in the patient's hands, and that's what the commercials are aimed at.

[ Parent ]
Taking a look at the subtle issues. (4.00 / 3) (#20)
by Quar on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 06:44:20 PM EST

First off I am sure that everyone has seen these ads. However they have been around for longer than the last few years in paper form. Just pick up a copy of a mainly menís or mainly womenís magazine and you should find about half a dozen. The one I personally love it the one that is out about social anxiety.

"Donít like crowds? Feel Overwhelmed? Etc etc.."

I donít remember the other one, but it was an anti-depression drug. They showed everyone dancing around in bright happy places with huge smiles on their face. Its amazing how they seem to try and atract people with low self esteem already. Or try and make one feel that being different, unhappy, or bothered is always wrong. Heck, personally I despise crowds. One on One or small groups are fine but I dont like attending sports games or "major events". Is this wrong? I donít think so. Give me the Mountains to the sea trail in NC or the one down into pueblo canyon in NM with my best friends, where you can literally feel the space around you. Ive never had a better time than discussing religion, politcs, or anything with a group of 10 or more people late into the night.

One thing that I had always wondered about whas that they donít mention a single thing they actually _do_ effect at all. Everyone has stated this; it says to talk to your doctor and lists some of the side effects, usually bad.

There is an actual reason for the intentional vague promises provided. It is completely based on patent protection and copyrighted chemical compounds. Per a chemist friend who had done a stint at giant Glaxo-Welcome, if given enough positive and negative side effects she could piece together the drugís general compound and then be able to synthesize it. This gets around copyright and patent infringement because with the effects being public knowledge other companies could freely duplicate their work and distribute a very similar product with little impunity.

Also there is no greater medium to reach the masses about new drugs reaching the market than TV. By hitting the public market they are able to reach a much higher saturation point then trying to just inform doctors. If the drug companies were to try and reach just doctors, they would have to use lists and registers for those that are currently licensed. Also they could also try for medical journals, which I am sure they do hit as well. But the best way to get the information out is to hit the public. Generally we are noisy and pushy enough that if a person believes that drug A is what they need they can go find out more information from their doctor. If he doesnít know, he (or she. Donít mean to be sexist) can get more information to help the patient decide what is best for them.

Like the original poster said in a reply there is a huge s/n ratio on TV today even just considering the number of commercials minutes to actual show minutes. However I would rather have someone find a small piece of information, TV or Internet, and have their doctor follow up on that and just rely on what doctors alone can pick up. I agree with dgris completely on this (see his post). In fact he stated that portion perfecting it would be silly for me to repeat it. Thanks :).

And as finally comment about the beer/liquor observation. From what I know its actually because what the government is willing to condone and what they wont. Most people can drink 1 beer and be okay. Having even one shot of some liquor will make some people drunker than skunks. It all has to do with the image willing to be presented. What is presented publicly and acceptable privately.


drunker than skunks (2.50 / 2) (#32)
by aprater on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 03:31:20 PM EST

hmm...
Most people can drink 1 beer and be okay. Having even one shot of some liquor will make some people drunker than skunks.

I don't believe this one. Don't they have the same amount of alcohol? I suppose hard liquor could be absorbed more quickly into bloodstream by some people... But I don't see how this would get them drunker than a skunk... because when you're drunk as a skunk you're pretty drunk, eh?

I'm curious, does anyone know of any particular brand of alcohol that gets these people drunker than skunks?

[ Parent ]

drunker than monks (4.00 / 1) (#35)
by bitwise on Sun Oct 15, 2000 at 09:39:32 PM EST

The original poster is right - speed of absorption does factor in to how drunk you get, especially when you're talking about the difference between the first beer and first shot.

It basically comes down to image, though. Sitting down, having a beer, watching a game. It's an American icon. Spirits and liquor carry with them these negative connotations. The government can't look like it endorses getting drunk.If our political institutions give the impression that escaping from the (worrying) world we live in is okay, then all hell would break loose.

--
eschew obfuscation ;)
[ Parent ]

Actually, I'm annoyed the other way... (2.33 / 3) (#21)
by vsync on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 06:50:48 PM EST

Since you need a doctor's prescription to get these drugs anyway, why on earth do they have to spend 10-20 seconds detailing all the possible outcomes of taking the drug? ("Possible side effects include dry mouth, runny nose, nausea, drowsiness, insomnia, amnesia, hallucinations, and sexual disfunction. All were similar to sugar pill.")

I mean seriously, the doctors have to know about and tell you this stuff anyway, and it really should be up to the patient in the end on whether they want to risk a certain medication. Why do they have to waste >50% of their ad time with disclaimers?

--
"The problem I had with the story, before I even finished reading, was the copious attribution of thoughts and ideas to vsync. What made it worse was the ones attributed to him were the only ones that made any sense whatsoever."

The Doctors Don't Know Everything... (none / 0) (#26)
by ravenmystic on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 12:01:22 PM EST

Doctors take continuing education; not all of them will attend the same lectures. If your personal physician missed the lecture on some anti-depressant, then s/he would probably only hear about it via colleagues. And that's only if those colleagues have decided to use any of these new drugs.

On a lighter note: To quote my wife's pharmacy professor, "If it doesn't have any side effects, it probably isn't affecting anything." By that argument, the longer they can list possible side effects, the better it works. :)



[ Parent ]
Not quite true... (none / 0) (#31)
by Alik on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 12:53:52 PM EST

As far as the CME, don't fool yourself --- most of them eat the free snacks and then ignore the lecture (just as so many of my classmates do in med school). They'll hear about the drug, though, believe me. Between the reps with samples and the ads in journals and the mailings, you have to be practicing in Darkest Africa to not hear of a drug when a company wants to sell lots of it.

With the side effects... yeah, that used to be true. It's not so true anymore, and it's going to be less true in future. One of the good things about the advances in biochemistry is that we're starting to be able to design very specific receptor blockers/activators. Evolution has made sure that your body's chemical signals only go to the places they're needed (for the most part). We're getting closer and closer to being able to really exploit that. Now, there will still be unethical things done in the process of patenting and selling those discoveries, but some parts of the process are improving.


[ Parent ]
Re: The Doctors Don't Know Everything... (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by vsync on Sun Oct 15, 2000 at 06:45:55 AM EST

So? That just means if a doctor hasn't had much experience with a certain drug, he or she should first inform you of that fact and then either do a little research or refer you to someone who has (preferably both). And just because they may not do this properly doesn't mean we should compensate by doing things wrong in another area.

--
"The problem I had with the story, before I even finished reading, was the copious attribution of thoughts and ideas to vsync. What made it worse was the ones attributed to him were the only ones that made any sense whatsoever."
[ Parent ]
It's better this way. (2.00 / 1) (#29)
by Alik on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 12:49:20 PM EST

Most docs do not have a whole lot of time for each patient. In general, they'll tell you the major one or two effects and give you the little package insert, which 99% of people don't read. IMHO, hearing that larger side effect list on TV is good old Truth In Advertising. If it scares off a few consumers, good. That's what informed consent is supposed to be about --- you tell someone the risks so they don't have to accept more than they want.



[ Parent ]
No, it's NOT better this way. (none / 0) (#34)
by vsync on Sun Oct 15, 2000 at 06:49:06 AM EST

Um, if you go around taking random drugs simply because they were featured in commercials alongside shiny things and without doing any research, you deserve to have horrific side effects take place, preferably involving your ability to produce offspring. It is not society's job to prevent you from doing stupid things to yourself.

--
"The problem I had with the story, before I even finished reading, was the copious attribution of thoughts and ideas to vsync. What made it worse was the ones attributed to him were the only ones that made any sense whatsoever."
[ Parent ]
Warnings (none / 0) (#40)
by michaela on Mon Oct 16, 2000 at 06:00:55 PM EST

If I recall, it wasn't until recent years that the FDA would allow drug companies to advertise in the media. Previously advertising was restricted to sending reps and information packets to doctor's offices.

With the new allowances for advertising, came some responsibilities. I believe that the FDA requires them to list common side effects if they mention the drug's intended purpose.
--
That is all
[ Parent ]

glad i don't live in the US (3.71 / 7) (#24)
by enterfornone on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 07:41:26 AM EST

it must be hell having a constitution that allows people to say what they want and stops the government from carrying out it's duty to protect innocent people from ideas that might corrupt them. </sarcasm>

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
They Advertise For a Valid Reason... (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by ravenmystic on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 11:55:45 AM EST

My wife is a veterinarian. Those of you in America have probably seen commercials for Advantage and the like, as well as the slew of anti-depressants now available for people. Even though the medications are usually unnecessary, such as heartworm medications for dogs in WA, they provide information.

Why is this information important? Take, for example, myself, who's been diagnosed with "marked" depression. The doctors will give you information regarding what they think is the best medication for you, not every single one of them. Perhaps your doctor is unaware of these new drugs that are hitting the market, and, yes, that's very possible. Keeping current in the medical field, by looking at the Veterinary field, is tough -- constant continuing education is required, and they can't even attend all of them.

The companies that manufacture these medications are trying to sell product, no different than Budweiser. Now, however, they're allowed to advertise on TV so that the people that don't realize there are alternative medications can ask their doctor about them. If your doctor isn't familiar with it, at least s/he'd be educated enough to form an opinion and do the research.

This isn't about the government trying to control the masses or make you watch pointless things. It's about offering those that take medication alternatives, and those that don't options.



(2.00 / 2) (#27)
by el_guapo on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 12:07:24 PM EST

While I agree with your sentinment - I think (at least in the US, sorry again for the US centric viewpoint) THE PEOPLE should decide what to view on TV, *********Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.************* NEVER hand your power to decide what YOU Want to do over to slimebag politicians, becasue you'll never get it back.....
mas cerveza, por favor mirrors, manifestos, etc.
Not the government's job in the first place (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by lwiggins on Mon Oct 16, 2000 at 01:03:36 PM EST

It is not the governments job to tell us what we can and can't watch on television. If you don't like what is being shown, change the channel, it is easy enough to get upwards of 200 channels, and while there is rarely anything quality on, I don't think you can blame the commercials. As for the stance that people should not be informed of drugs that could be available to them: it is not the governments job to protect people from themselves. I should be able to put whatever substance into me that I want, and as long as I don't try to drive or do something else to injure someone else, it should be legal. I think the more pervasive question in this discussion goes along with another rant, and that is whether the United States is overstepping its boundaries.

What about "illegal" drugs? (none / 0) (#41)
by TinCanFury on Tue Oct 17, 2000 at 06:20:23 PM EST

What about illegal drugs? I think the US Government should not be allowed to do 90% of what it is doing, but by your line of thought, they would not have barred use of "illegal" drugs.

I completely agree with your arguement, just not how you got there.

--- -Steven Adeff
[ Parent ]
Things that shouldn't be advertised on TV | 43 comments (38 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!