Another vote to get Rx-drug ads off the air

[thatcrazycajun]

USA Today's website features this guest column by an MD who makes the best argument I've heard so far for reining in the drug companies' habit of spending millions to put an avalanche of commercials for expensive, still-under-patent brand-name prescription drugs on our radios and TV sets. Always glad to see another besides me beating this drum.

Comments

Drug companies

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

I am firmly convinced that the drug companies are the source of a lot of major problems in this country, and that some people are over-medicated or improperly medicated because of drug company propaganda. When I was first prescribed my baseline antidepressant (Asendin, which became Amoxapine) everybody said that it was really *the* wonder drug for depression. Then it went generic, and Prozac and the other SSRIs were being pushed by the drug companies. All of a sudden psychiatrists kept trying to tell me that the Amoxapine couldn't possibly be working as well as I said it was, and I really, really needed to try one of the SSRIs, which would work far better and have fewer side effects. This turned out to be absolutely false. (I was put on four different ones.) But I kept talking about the Amoxapine and very nearly called a liar, over and over, and at one point was told, "Don't take Amoxapine for even one more day. This new drug [Serzone] will do far, far more for you." Serzone was every bit as nightmarish as the other three, and I finally threw away my pills and went back to the half-finished bottle of Amoxapine. I then needed to do some serious psychiatrist shopping to find one who hadn't been taken in by drug company propaganda and would believe me when I told the truth about my experiences. I found one, but am a little frightened, as if Dr. Bebchuk were to get a better offer in another city, I would have real trouble finding another one who would believe me; as soon as "Asendin's" drug company reps were no longer pushing it, nobody believed it worked any more, and this really, really has bothered me.

Nate B.

[wouldyoueva.livejournal.com]

My ex-doctor (the one who made house calls, and comes to Balticon every year) gets quite worked up on this subject.

For my part I'd rather see cigarette ads (some of which were quite witty and entertaining) come back to replace the revenue for drug ads, which are almost never witty and entertaining.

My urologist was discussing different drugs for me (when I was temporarily not covered by health insurance) and said of some drug, "It's about to go generic. We know that because they stop the free samples."

We could lover prescription drug costs by 14% by cutting out the ads. With Medicare picking up part of prescriptions, I think we all have a dog in this fight.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

The problem is the DC Circuit decided that direct to consumer advertising was free speech and that it was evil and paternalistic of the government to regulate it (besides mandating disclosure and accuracy).

[ericavdg.livejournal.com]

I'm all for free speech, but I'd really rather not have to have dinner-time discussions with my 12-year-old about erectile dysfunction and priapism. Isn't there enough information about sexuality already for her to digest? Until this matter can be resolved, take a look at a wonder drug that will fix whatever ails ya! http://www.havidol.com/