PDA

View Full Version : Prescription drug ads


figaro
08-19-2007, 10:16 AM
I am watching CBS Sunday Morning and they just ran a part on prescription drug ads. In it they said that there is only one other country (New Zealand) where these commercials are allowed, the rest of the world, the commercials are illegal. Every time my in laws come to visit from The Netherlands, they are surprised by the amount of drug commercials they see. I am surprised too, my thoughts on this was if you needed whatever medication they are selling, shouldn't your doctor know this? They even showed a guy who is taking about 12 pills every day, some he does need and others he doesn't need at all? Why? Does he think that taking pills for something he does not have will prevent him from getting whatever the pill is made for?:?? And it sounds like he has a ethical doctor too.

They even showed a company who was paid by a drug company to make up a name for a new medication they made? And if I am correct, some of the names were just other names for arthritis?

My husband from Holland, whenever he gets a headache, I ask him if he wants to take something for it and the answer is no 90% of the time. And the only reason he takes prescription meds now is because he has T2 Diabetes. He doesn't even like to take a vitamin!

And I think that the cost of the drugs would not be so high if they did not pay ad companies to come up with new names for current syndromes and stopped with all the commercials.:wall:

cheesiesmom
08-19-2007, 12:14 PM
I watched the same segment; it's a rerun actually. I feel the same way. I think the drug companies "invent" conditions so they can sell the stuff they develop. Maybe it's a legit condition, but restless legs? Robert Klein was 30 years ahead of himself. (Can't stop my leg.)

There's a number of conditions/diseases which drug companies should be researching including the various myositis conditions and other auto-immune diseases. (The variety I have is, thus far, untreatable.) But apparently it's more financially beneficial and easier to develop and sell stuff for ED and RLS than to worry about real (I know, they may be real) medical problems.

Besides, while I don't want to sound prudish and old-fashioned, I think it's distasteful to be running all these ads at times when kids might be watching TV. We always encouraged our children to watch the evening news. But geez, the number of cialis comm'ls and the new singing viagra comm'l, not to mention all the talk of bloody stool and vomiting, during that hour would make me turn off the set if I had pre-teens.

I really think the government should step in, step up, join the rest of the world and stop all this type of drug advertising.

And for what it's worth, I think the guy taking all the 'scripts is a hypochondriac and his doctor should stop being an enabler.

I will now vacate the soapbox for other points of view.

Gladys

angel4ever
08-19-2007, 12:46 PM
As a young woman I have to say that the amount of advertisements for presrciption drugs is absolutely ridiculous. (Although I do find one of the enzyte commercials to be a tad humorous, lol).

At any rate, it seems as though the drug companies have become your "local drug pusher" except they can peddle drugs legally. I mean seriously, do we need a drug for restless leg syndrome? What is that anyway? (I don't mean to insult anyone that is actually suffering from it) But why all of a sudden is there a drug for it now? And what about this bc pill that allows you to have only 4 periods a year. I mean it will definitely save money having to spend for sanitary products, but do we need to see these ads every 10 minutes? I think the government is trying to make us become hypochondriacs...

Jess_knit
08-19-2007, 12:49 PM
Restless legs syndrome is an actual condition, though I'm not sure how effective the medication is for it. It's named for what it is - an irresistable urge to move your legs. It gets worse at night, and can lead to sleep deprivation.

I usually scoff at drug commercials. There was one, the one that talks about a vaccine for cervical cancer, that I thought wasn't worthless. But the ones for viagra and others make me laugh. I mean, is there anybody now who doesn't know what that pill does? Do they really need to keep advertising it?

Anyway...

Sara
08-19-2007, 12:50 PM
I agree that the amount of money spent on drug ads in this country is ridiculous. I wish that I had never seen a commercial for "ED". :ick: Now I have to fend off questions from my 7 year old as to why people take baths OUTSIDE and why do they have TWO bathtubs?:doh::teehee:

However, RLS is a legitimate medical condition. Some of our friends here on the forum do suffer from it. As I understand, it's a neurological disorder. I know that no harm was meant, I just wanted to clear that up.:hug:

angel4ever
08-19-2007, 12:56 PM
^^Again, I didn't mean to offend anyone who actually suffers from restless leg syndrome. If I have offended anyone, I deeply apologize...:hug:

It just seems that there is a new drug being advertised on a daily basis for anything and everything

Jan in CA
08-19-2007, 01:07 PM
I agree that the amount of money spent on drug ads in this country is ridiculous. I wish that I had never seen a commercial for "ED". :ick:

Ugh, I can't agree more! I am so sick of ED commercials! In this case I guess it has brought the condition into the open so men who suffer from it won't feel alone, but seriously the number of commercials is insane!!

stitchwitch
08-19-2007, 01:11 PM
It's a big circle: Doctors get rich off of people visiting them, they need to prescribe drugs so people have to come back over and over for the prescription and another prescription to cure the side effects of the first prescription and on and on and on. Big pharma makes money off of the docs and the insurance companies.
The thing that irks me to no end is the over use of antibiotics but that's another story and follows the whole doctors need to look useful so they prescribe stuff people don't necessarily need so the patients get the "feel good" idea that visiting their doctor is helping them when in reality those antibiotics he or she just prescribed for you won't cure that viral infection you've had for two days. They aren't going to tell you that because next time you get sick you'll stay home, drink fluids and rest instead of dropping some change on an office visit.

zazzu
08-19-2007, 01:41 PM
The thing that irks me to no end is the over use of antibiotics...


Absolutely. Over a course of a few years, and several different doctors, I was put on antibiotics regularly to combat sinus infections. Finally, I'd had enough and did my own research on the internet and found my own cure....Vitamin C. Lots and LOTS of it. I haven't had a sinus infection since (it's been over six years now).

Why didn't even one doctor suggest I purchase a ten-dollar bottle of Vitamin C rather than put me on antibiotics over and over? :grrr:

I think we know the answer.....money. :mad:

kellyh57
08-19-2007, 02:30 PM
My grandma is one of the people that takes a gazillion drugs because she HAS every condition advertised on TV. (Well, at least she thinks she does.) Ugh. Talk about emptying out Medicare's funds!

The ones I hate are the bladder control ones. Yes, I pee more than 8 times a day, but I drink 73 gallons of water a day and I have a baby that thinks my bladder is a punching bag! Every time they start talking about it I HAVE to go to the bathroom. And, MUST they show a "bladder" exploding? Yuck.

I just love listening to the "fine print." They spend 3/4 of the commercial listing all the warnings. What a great use of time!

It reminds me of that old joke with the little boy that goes to the drugstore and has saved up all his money to get tampons so he can go swimming, horseback riding, etc.

Kelly

zip
08-19-2007, 03:36 PM
ok, I'll confess. I love the Enzyte commercials with BOB. And his wife. :mrgreen:

However, anyone who works in pharmaceuticals or the medical industry knows how the pharms push their product. My last job was with a physicians' group that was visited every day by pharm reps who came bearing gifts. Ultimately, the physicians cut those visits to four times per week: two for breakfast and two for lunch. Friday was an employees feed yourself day.

Yeah, it's a racket like anything else. You have to think for yourself.

Nobones
08-19-2007, 04:15 PM
I am reading this in the U.K and am appalled that drug company's advertise on telly. What will be next? Private doctors offering operations and the most affordable prices?

In the U.k you can get ads for over the counter medicine for colds and flu etc, but I've never seen one for prescription only drugs.

I'm on a lot of drugs myself, do I need all of them? My doctor seems to think so although I would dearly love to stop taking a few of them.

Oh and I have 'restless leg syndrome' it's a bit of the pain and some time I kick my hubby in the night, but nothing I'd consider taking any pills for.

zip
08-19-2007, 04:31 PM
I am reading this in the U.K and am appalled that drug company's advertise on telly. What will be next? Private doctors offering operations and the most affordable prices?
...

Advertising and competitive pricing already goes on here. Doctors advertise just like attorneys do.

minkoo
08-20-2007, 10:11 AM
What I don't understand is sometimes they advertise a drug but don't tell you what it's for! Hello?

I like the ED commercials. It makes up for years of maxi pad commercials women had to suffer with. At least now the playing field is even. :grrr:

Kaydee
08-20-2007, 11:03 AM
I canít stand the drug commercials; theyíre so annoying to watch. I especially canít stand the ED one with Bob, those commercials make me sick. Not only are they annoying, but do we really need to hear men advertising their ED? I also canít stand the ones for STD medications like Valtrex. Yes we get you have genital warts, and now we know that you can pass them on even when youíre not having an outbreak. What stumps me is why anyone would want to act in one of those commercials. The money must be pretty good if these people are going on TV and acting like they have ED and STDs.:shrug:

stitchwitch
08-20-2007, 11:35 AM
What I don't understand is sometimes they advertise a drug but don't tell you what it's for! Hello?


I'm pretty sure the way the advertising goes is if they don't say what it's for they don't have to list all the side effects. I remember reading something to that affect.
I guess you are supposed to go into your doctor and say "gee I was watching the tv and they mentioned some new drug called xanacialiviagvalt, I'd like to have some" then your doctor is supposed to tell you what it's for and the side effects. :hmm:

stitchwitch
08-20-2007, 11:38 AM
I also canít stand the ones for STD medications like Valtrex. Yes we get you have genital warts, and now we know that you can pass them on even when youíre not having an outbreak. .:shrug:

No, no, no the Valtrex is for herpes that can be passed along to your partner without an outbreak, not genital warts. :roflhard: Haven't you been paying attention to the ads?!:roflhard::roflhard:

sinistral_needler
08-20-2007, 12:48 PM
I don't know which drug the commercial is for (probably Viagara), but I get a kick out of the one that describes one of the side effects as an erection lasting for over 4 hours .. I'm thinking, well, isn't that the point of taking the medication???:clink:

angel4ever
08-20-2007, 01:46 PM
I don't know which drug the commercial is for (probably Viagara), but I get a kick out of the one that describes one of the side effects as an erection lasting for over 4 hours .. I'm thinking, well, isn't that the point of taking the medication???:clink:

I know, soooo true :rofl::rofl::rofl:

PaperGirl
08-20-2007, 03:20 PM
Ugh, I can't agree more! I am so sick of ED commercials! In this case I guess it has brought the condition into the open so men who suffer from it won't feel alone, but seriously the number of commercials is insane!!


TBH, MY whole problem with it is that the pills and drugs for ED are SO vast, and SO well known..

What about women who have low or no sex drive?

What about women who have sexual dysfunction?

AND why in ANYONES name is it perfectly FINE to have the insurance PAY for the ED pills, but I cant have my glasses covered by the insurance?

:doh:

(reminds me of a joke..Bill Maher I think? Or Robin Williams. You can get an erection but you cant see where to put it.)

Rhea
08-21-2007, 01:11 AM
Hey now. I have some pretty gnarly RLS. My legs twitch like mad whenever I lay down and the ridiculous urge to move keeps me up at all hours of the night. I was pretty stoked when they had commercials about it up because I know it's pretty common and is keeping many people from getting the sleep they need.
*rant over*


Yeah. ED commercials and the like are pretty embarassing to watch with the family.

hunterjenn
08-21-2007, 02:55 AM
:shrug: I figure the ED commercials are no more irritating for us than the yeast infection commercials are for my husband. :teehee:

From a marketing standpoint, Rx companies are commercial companies, just like everything else. Most conditions have more than one drug treatment option, so companies are just fighting to get the name of their product some exposure. I would imagine they figure that if you have that condition, you might go to your doctor and ask to try their product. I know I've considered it for my migraines. :shrug: We're a capitalist country! What can ya do?

flea
08-21-2007, 04:40 PM
Just as a comment about the fact that some people take far, far, far too many pills every day... One of the biggest problems in the growing population of older adults is polypharmacy.

They don't know why they take what they take. The doctor prescribed it, never bothered to find out what some other specialist might have prescribed as well, and the client gets the 'scrip filled and starts popping the pills. They never think to doubt the doctor because they were all conditioned to think of doctors as infallible and buy into that whole paternal structure of old medicine.

As a brand spankin' new nurse I've been struggling to make extra time with my patients to educate them on their medicines. It's my job to watch out for double/triple coverage of certain symptoms and make sure it doesn't continue. It's hard, very hard. There's not a whole ton of time to spend with med education, but you just have to make it. I consider it one of the most important aspects of nursing.

kellyh57
08-21-2007, 05:27 PM
Just as a comment about the fact that some people take far, far, far too many pills every day... One of the biggest problems in the growing population of older adults is polypharmacy.

They don't know why they take what they take. The doctor prescribed it, never bothered to find out what some other specialist might have prescribed as well, and the client gets the 'scrip filled and starts popping the pills. They never think to doubt the doctor because they were all conditioned to think of doctors as infallible and buy into that whole paternal structure of old medicine.


AMEN! The medical staff does their best, but the patients don't mention ALL the drugs they have. I've heard so many horror stories about people taking contridicting medications and whatnot. They think since a drug isn't being used for the condition they are talking about, they don't need to mention it. We've tried to get my grandma to keep a list of all of her medications/doses, etc, but she could care less. Then she gets meds from Mexico and her pharmacist has no clue what all she's on. I think our country is WAY to medicated and we need some sort of regulation on it!

Kelly

Vendie
08-21-2007, 06:18 PM
The effectiveness of DTC (direct to consumer) ads are constantly a topic of debate among those watching the industry. But like Jen said, the pharmaceutical industry is a for profit industry, so marketing is part of the game.

The reason you see ads that don't tell you what the drug does is b/c of rules that the FDA has established. If you say what the drug does, you have to list all the adverse side effects too.

Drug companies don't invent conditions for their drugs. Just b/c it's not a well known condition (like RLS) doesn't mean that it's not a valid one.

orcoastknitter
08-21-2007, 07:18 PM
I have learned about herpes and ED more than I ever wanted to know.

I wonder how many men have gone into the ER with an erection lasting longer than 4 hours?

:teehee:

hunterjenn
08-21-2007, 10:01 PM
It happens! My husband used to work in the ER--he saw a few cases. :teehee:

Re: the overmedication, Kelly makes a good point. Doctors & nurses can only do their best with the information they've been given.

To some extent, I think it's a generational problem. Many seniors come from an era when doctors were NOT questioned. These days we go in with our own ideas of what we might have, and the knowledge that if we don't like what we're told, we can seek another opinion.

Which, to bring things full-circle (:teehee:), is why drug companies advertise. They know that if you're not completely happy with the drug you're on, you'll be looking for other options.

Wench
08-21-2007, 10:12 PM
Which, to bring things full-circle (:teehee:), is why drug companies advertise. They know that if you're not completely happy with the drug you're on, you'll be looking for other options.
Well, and having all of those options isn't necessarily bad. Different drugs will affect different people in different ways. To illustrate, the first BC pill I was on gave me cramps so horrible that for two weeks out of the month, I was getting out of bed doubled over, and couldn't straighten out until I'd been in the shower for a good five minutes.

So, I went to my doctor and asked for something else. The pill I'm on now is awesome.

It's the same deal for many other conditions or purposes. There's a variety of drugs that may or may not help you. I don't think that asking for something else if what you have isn't working is bad, it's just taking good care of yourself. I think everyone deserves to have as good a quality of life as possible. Do the drug companies and your doctor make money? Yup, but... so do you. Everyone has to make a living somehow, and honestly, there are less ethical ways to do it!

That being said, I do agree that there are a lot of people who are WAY overmedicated.

kbagel
08-23-2007, 02:17 PM
I'm actually working in pharmaceutical advertising right now. I was recently laid off at my old ad agency and I'm doing freelance currently. The amount of money the pharma companies spend is off the hook. I'm young, I haven't been in the industry that long, and my hourly rate is not that high compared to other people I'm working with. I'm just going to say that I make my monthly rent in one day of work. I really hate working in pharma and am looking really hard for a new job at a consumer agency.

Kaydee
08-23-2007, 03:05 PM
I'm just going to say that I make my monthly rent in one day of work.


Whoa, baby!:shock: I work in healthcare but maybe I need to change over to the pharma industry. J/K. But seriously its crazy the amount of money the pharm companies spend not only on advertising but other things as well. We have drug reps bringing in lunch for our office everyday (not that I'm complaining;)). They also sponser speakers from around the country and many times around the world so they can come present cases to our docs, and their paying for hotels, airfare, etc for the speaker. And we wonder why the cost of prescription drugs is so high.

Gloriapike
08-24-2007, 04:24 PM
I'm one of those people who avoids taking medication if I can help it. I could probably walk into a doctor's office right now and get them to prescribe me all sorts of things... (including scary antidepressants and stuff) But I don't, because frankly I don't want to mess my body up any worse than it already is.

BTW, somebody mentioned that ad for a "cervical cancer vaccine"? If I'm thinking of the same commercial, this really BOTHERS me: That drug is a vaccine against an STD. However, the commercial makes it sound like ALL WOMEN are at risk and should be getting this vaccine. If you visit the website in the commercial, it DOES NOT tell you any of this. It says "ask your doctor if you need this". I feel that they are bordering on false advertising by not coming out and telling the consumers whose attention they are trying to get EXACTLY what this drug is for.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer-vaccine/WO00120

Hmm.

Jess_knit
08-24-2007, 05:08 PM
I could probably get into a debate about the ad, but I'll just say...I think it's a good idea for the company to get the word out there that such a vaccine exists, even if it's most effective for women who aren't yet sexually active, and haven't been exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine protects against. It's always a good idea to ask your doctor if you need a medication, but I think it's good to let women know that, for the first time, there is SOMETHING that can help protect against cervical cancer. I know I'll be getting the vaccine soon.

I also don't like to take medicine unless necessary. I tell people I have a cold, and they all say, "Oh, are you taking something for it?" I never take cold medication; I believe it'll run it's own course. I take Tylenol or Motrin if I need to, or antibiotics if I have to. My mom is a doctor, and she doesn't believe in over-prescribing. I tend to follow what she thinks.

Anyway...drug companies, same as any other, want people to use their products. Their ads reflect that. I try not to get too worked up over it. :shrug:

zip
08-24-2007, 09:45 PM
...
BTW, somebody mentioned that ad for a "cervical cancer vaccine"? If I'm thinking of the same commercial, this really BOTHERS me: That drug is a vaccine against an STD. However, the commercial makes it sound like ALL WOMEN are at risk and should be getting this vaccine. If you visit the website in the commercial, it DOES NOT tell you any of this. It says "ask your doctor if you need this". I feel that they are bordering on false advertising by not coming out and telling the consumers whose attention they are trying to get EXACTLY what this drug is for.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer-vaccine/WO00120

Hmm.

That's a very narrow view. That drug is a vaccine against precursors to cancer. If I had a daughter at the age recommended for this vaccine, I would absolutely want her to get it. It's a parent's responsibility to protect his or her children. Most young women will eventually become sexually active, if not now, then in a few years. Having sex with just one person qualifies as sexually active.

And I expect if your daughter were to become infected as a result of rape or because her cheating husband had passed it to her, you'd wish you had indeed had her vaccinated. Life happens, you know.

Gloriapike
08-25-2007, 11:00 AM
That's a very narrow view. That drug is a vaccine against precursors to cancer. If I had a daughter at the age recommended for this vaccine, I would absolutely want her to get it. It's a parent's responsibility to protect his or her children. Most young women will eventually become sexually active, if not now, then in a few years. Having sex with just one person qualifies as sexually active.

And I expect if your daughter were to become infected as a result of rape or because her cheating husband had passed it to her, you'd wish you had indeed had her vaccinated. Life happens, you know.

I understand that totally, I'm not saying it's a bad idea by any means, I just didn't like the way they seemed to be trying to market it. The fact that the website (at the time I looked it up originally) didn't contain a lot of important info was what bothered me.

Since it's a relatively NEW drug I'd nevertheless be quite nervous about them making it mandatory. There are reasons besides the moral arguments why some parents don't like to get all these vaccines for their kids. Contrary to what the proponents say, many vaccines do come with a degree of risk for an adverse reaction, and we don't really know what the large-scale, long-term effects of this drug are.

I think they should wait until the drug has had more time on the market before they go trying to make it mandatory. Make it a reccommended option, but let the parents choose.

That's just my opinion, though! : )

stitchwitch
08-25-2007, 11:26 AM
That's kinda how I feel too.

Vendie
08-25-2007, 12:36 PM
I just want to say, both as a Mod and a pharma employee, thanks to everyone for keeping this "hot topic" discussion as civilized as it has been. When I first saw the thread, I was very worried about the content, but I'm not so much anymore. I really appreciate the level of discourse.

msoebel
08-30-2007, 11:11 AM
I have two quick (polite) things to say:

-One: I hate the commercials for drugs for STDs. They always show beautiful, active, young people in commited relationships.

Devastatingly handsome young man: "I have gonnorhea."
Beautiful willowy young woman: "And I don't. And we want to keep it that way."

It's so annoying. It's a DISEASE. Don't pretty it up. Don't try to send the message, "All the cool, beautiful athletic people with genital warts take this medicine!"

Also, I really dislike the ad for the vaccine for HPV. I just feel like it's misleading and not entirely informative. Before I inject my child with yet another vaccine, I want A LOT more information about it.

Things the commercial leaves out that I think should be included:

-HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. It's the ONLY way it can be transmitted.

-HPV is not the ONLY cause of cervical cancer.

-This vaccine is not effective against ALL strains of HPV.

I feel the commercial is mildly dishonest, or at the very best, misleading. I am not sure how I feel about my daughter getting this vaccine, but I find myself unable to trust the drug company behind it because of the marketing campaign-obivously directed at very young women (most of the "women" in the commercial are teen girls).

Just my .02.

Misty

Kaydee
08-30-2007, 11:22 AM
Things the commercial leaves out that I think should be included:

-HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. It's the ONLY way it can be transmitted.

-HPV is not the ONLY cause of cervical cancer.

-This vaccine is not effective against ALL strains of HPV.

I feel the commercial is mildly dishonest, or at the very best, misleading. I am not sure how I feel about my daughter getting this vaccine, but I find myself unable to trust the drug company behind it because of the marketing campaign-obivously directed at very young women (most of the "women" in the commercial are teen girls).

Just my .02.

Misty

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the commercial mention that the vaccine doesn't protect against all types of cervical cancer.

I think the point of putting teens in the commercials is that the vaccine is for women under the age of 26, and they recommend getting it before the girl/women is sexually active so they can be protected. The statistics are that over 80% of sexually active people get HPV, thatís an astounding number! To me it seems better to get the vaccine before those girls become sexually active since chances are that sometime in the future they will be even if it is far down the road when they are married or whatever their situation.

I hope that doesnít sound argumentative because I donít want to come off that way. I just thought Iíd put my thoughts on it out there.:hug: