Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 988158

Shown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US

Posted by zonked on June 14, 2011, at 23:33:54

Why is this legal here (US) and illegal everywhere else (except New Zealand?) Is it political?

(Don't hold back. I don't think this practice is okay, and wish it would stop....)

Although the Pristiq commercial lady really captures what I'm actually feeling like (all three versions of her--her wind-up doll avatars are a little creepy though!)


-z

 

Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US zonked

Posted by phillipa on June 15, 2011, at 0:39:01

In reply to Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US, posted by zonked on June 14, 2011, at 23:33:54

If you watch the commercials you will take no drugs is that what the new administration well not new anymore wants so we will develop medical problems? I don't know but the Viagra one is good going blind is one side effect now what did they used to say "with yourself and will go blind". Interesting subject will be curious to see what others have to say. Thanks Phillipa

 

Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US

Posted by jono_in_adelaide on June 15, 2011, at 1:24:30

In reply to Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US zonked, posted by phillipa on June 15, 2011, at 0:39:01

Have to say that I think its a bad idea - anyone can diagnose them selves with a headache and prescribe a couple of Advil, or diagnose them self with a cold and self prescribe some Sudafed, but realy, can people self diagnose with depression, bipolar, high cholesterol and all the other ills the drug makers peddle?

I would be most reluctant to see DTC advertising introduced into Australia for prescripton drugs - the adverts for OTC drugs annoy me enough!

 

Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US

Posted by Terry8 on June 15, 2011, at 6:37:13

In reply to Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US, posted by jono_in_adelaide on June 15, 2011, at 1:24:30

> Have to say that I think its a bad idea - anyone can diagnose them selves with a headache and prescribe a couple of Advil, or diagnose them self with a cold and self prescribe some Sudafed, but realy, can people self diagnose with depression, bipolar, high cholesterol and all the other ills the drug makers peddle?

I'm not a fan of direct-to-consumer drug advertising either, but I've never gotten the feeling that the ads are encouraging people to self-diagnose depression or high cholesterol or the like. More of a: "Been diagnosed with depression? Have you talked to your doctor about XYZ drug? We make creepy wind-up toys happy!" Or "Are you still having trouble with your [insert chronic condition here]? There's hope! Talk to your doctor about [insert expensive on-patent drug here]!" I think they do prey in particular on people who have chronic problems that are hard to fully treat with current pharmaceuticals, but I think the issue is less self-diagnosis than trying to convince people that the new drug they haven't tried yet is going to be a better treatment than what their doctor is already using.

 

Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US jono_in_adelaide

Posted by zonked on June 15, 2011, at 12:33:44

In reply to Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US, posted by jono_in_adelaide on June 15, 2011, at 1:24:30

> can people self diagnose with depression, >bipolar, high cholesterol and all the other ills the drug makers peddle?

Seriously - as an American accustomed to DTC advertising I was nevertheless shocked when antipsychotics (first Abilify, then Seroquel XR) advertised on TV.

People with normal variations of mood then might go to their GP *convinced* that they're bipolar, and ask for these drugs. I wonder how many people who truly need these drugs got treatment because of the ads, vs. people with subclinical mood variation got these drugs and went on to develop akathisia or TD.

While I was somewhat ambivalent when I started seeing antidepressant commercials on TV (2001-ish with Zoloft?) I am more concerned with mass-marketing of antipsychotics.

The other side of the coin is that, also, some people who genuinely are bipolar may realize they've been suffering unnecessarily all along and seek treatment. Advertising is a poor form of health education, though.

When it comes down to it, I really would like to see them banned.

> I would be most reluctant to see DTC advertising introduced into Australia for prescripton drugs - the adverts for OTC drugs annoy me enough!

I don't blame you. BTW, have you *seen* any of these ads? (They're on YouTube if you're curious.) I was disturbed enough as an American!

-z

 

Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US

Posted by Christ_empowered on June 16, 2011, at 10:07:46

In reply to Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US jono_in_adelaide, posted by zonked on June 15, 2011, at 12:33:44

I think the psychiatric drug ads bother me because it is possible to "self-diagnose" and get an Rx, especially if you're not talking about a controlled substance. Remember the older Cymbalta commercials--"Depression hurts," a messy room, a frustrated looking individual? Yeah, OK, we've all felt that way; Cymbalta isn't going to help all that much for the vast majority of frustrated people out there.

I seem to recall seeing print ads for controlled substances, which is kind of ridiculous. I mean, an ad for Vyvanse and adderall? Really? Since when do you have to actually *advertise* amphetamine? My favorite one, though, was for that dissolving and I think flavored xanax.

 

Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US Christ_empowered

Posted by zonked on June 16, 2011, at 10:30:24

In reply to Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US, posted by Christ_empowered on June 16, 2011, at 10:07:46

> I think the psychiatric drug ads bother me because it is possible to "self-diagnose" and get an Rx, especially if you're not talking about a controlled substance. Remember the older Cymbalta commercials--"Depression hurts," a messy room, a frustrated looking individual? Yeah, OK, we've all felt that way; Cymbalta isn't going to help all that much for the vast majority of frustrated people out there.

It certainly didn't help me! But that's beside the point. :-)

Agreed 100%. (Great minds think alike!) Well, actually, antidepressants have some potential for subclinical uses - I believe this argument was made in "Listening to Prozac." Having said that, I think for subclinical depressions lifestyle changes and psychotherapy should be tried *first*. I certainly tried them.

> I seem to recall seeing print ads for controlled substances, which is kind of ridiculous. I mean, an ad for Vyvanse and adderall? Really? Since when do you have to actually *advertise* amphetamine? My favorite one, though, was for that dissolving and I think flavored xanax.

Yep, I've seen them. Adderall XR, Concerta, and Vyvanse. Usually in women's magazines - targeted either at their children or themselves. (Women's magazines seem a popular choice in clinic waiting rooms.)

Never saw the Xanax ads. :D I think for that drug in particular, word of mouth should be good enough!!

-z

 

Direct-to-doctor is the problem

Posted by desolationrower on June 16, 2011, at 20:45:07

In reply to Re: Direct-to-consumer advertising in the US Christ_empowered, posted by zonked on June 16, 2011, at 10:30:24

I'm not usually of corporate ickyness, but in this case i think it is ok. It is certainly some of the most factual advertising around.And it is good for people to know that there are treatments availible, when they might not have thought to ask thier doctor about something.

The bad marketing is the direct-to-practitioner 'education'. At least consumers don't think that the advertising they are getting from Pharma is sufficient and unbiased knowledge to judge a drug on.

-d/r


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.