Prescription drug advertisements

[manifold]

The United States is one of only two developed nations that allows DTCA (direct to consumer advertising) of prescription drugs. The other country is New Zealand. Do you think it should be banned here like it is almost everywhere else? I know a few of you will chime in with your knee-jerk "don't infringe on my personal freedoms, blah blah blah," as if this has anything to do with personal liberty. But that's ok because it's helpful for the rest of us when you expose yourself like that. Yes, it would be more government regulation of business (no new precedent there). But would it still be worth it?

 

[Bern80]

It certainly contributes to the cost of our drugs and I really can't see what the need is for it. At the same time thank god we don't ban things based on neccessity (for the most part anyway).Unfortunately there isn't any legal grounds to keep them from advertising. Infringement of their fiirst ammendment rights would probably be the first thing you would hear and rightfully so.

I hate to bring up a sticky and somewhat melodramatic point; we may be going down hill as far as our freedoms are concerned, but we are still suppossed to be a free county and freedom is more about protecting what you don't like than what you do like.

 

[jillian]

It certainly contributes to the cost of our drugs and I really can't see what the need is for it. At the same time thank god we don't ban things based on neccessity (for the most part anyway).Unfortunately there isn't any legal grounds to keep them from advertising. Infringement of their fiirst ammendment rights would probably be the first thing you would hear and rightfully so.

I hate to bring up a sticky and somewhat melodramatic point; we may be going down hill as far as our freedoms are concerned, but we are still suppossed to be a free county and freedom is more about protecting what you don't like than what you do like.

Actually, commercial speech has been regulated before. It is not entitled to the full bredth of the Fist Amendment. They have an absolute right to prevent advertisement of prescription drugs. I'd suggest you take a look at Metromedia and its progeny. Moreover, there are already truth in advertising laws for products whose manufacturers are prohibited from claiming results from use of a product that aren't true.

I'm more concerned about freedom for individuals (which is what the Constitution is theoretically supposed to protect) than corporateers.

 

[Taomon]

The United States is one of only two developed nations that allows DTCA (direct to consumer advertising) of prescription drugs. The other country is New Zealand. Do you think it should be banned here like it is almost everywhere else? I know a few of you will chime in with your knee-jerk "don't infringe on my personal freedoms, blah blah blah," as if this has anything to do with personal liberty. But that's ok because it's helpful for the rest of us when you expose yourself like that. Yes, it would be more government regulation of business (no new precedent there). But would it still be worth it?

DCTA is very bad. The only people who are qualified to prescribe drugs are doctors. Patients may know their symptoms, but may not understand the causes of those symptoms or the chemical impact that the drug will have on their body.

For example, allergies, the influenza and the common cold have many similar symptoms and can be misdiagnosed. Likewise, Influenza and food poisoning have similar symptoms...and you don't want to misdiagnose that.

Doctors have a better understanding of the human body, disease, and drug chemistry...and therefore, are more qualified to prescribe drugs than most all patients.

I am willing to bet (but cannot prove at this time) that the pharma-industry or select pharmaceutical companies made the move to DCTA because doctors were not prescribing dangerous drugs with many adverse side-effects to patients.

This is about money and not about patient well-being.

 

[Bern80]

I'm more concerned about freedom for individuals (which is what the Constitution is theoretically supposed to protect) than corporateers.

I believe in the eyes of the law a corporation is considered an individual. And silly or unneccessary as we may find it, what freedoms of the individual are they viloating by advertising?

 

[Taomon]

I believe in the eyes of the law a corporation is considered an individual. And silly or unneccessary as we may find it, what freedoms of the individual are they viloating by advertising?

Corporations are considered individuals in the eyes of the law. This is true. Media companies were recently awarded by the Supreme Court, the right of freedom of speech.

So what does that mean? The fairness laws that once existed (allowing alternate opinions an equal amount of air time) are now completely void and no one can challenge the right of the media outlet to offer only one opinion, one view, one portrayal of the facts.

Without a free flow of information, we are not free.

And advertisements fall into free speech areas. But what about our right to not be advertised to? In a society where marketing is as pervasive as we witness daily, we only have one choice...live with it or move to a remote cabin deep in the wilderness.

Not much of a choice. So much for freedom. This also begs us to consider, what our soldiers are actually fighting for since our individual freedoms are compromised more each day.

 

[manifold]

It certainly contributes to the cost of our drugs and I really can't see what the need is for it. At the same time thank god we don't ban things based on neccessity (for the most part anyway).Unfortunately there isn't any legal grounds to keep them from advertising. Infringement of their fiirst ammendment rights would probably be the first thing you would hear and rightfully so.

I hate to bring up a sticky and somewhat melodramatic point; we may be going down hill as far as our freedoms are concerned, but we are still suppossed to be a free county and freedom is more about protecting what you don't like than what you do like.

Commerce has long been regulated. Cigarettes ads have been banned for quite some time now. There wouldn't be an ounce of new precendent nor would it be worthy of the slippery slope argument.

As a side note, and I don't know if this applies to you, but I find it interesting when the same people who use the slippery slope argument against business regulation turn around and dismiss it entirely with respect to the unPatriot Act. Just sayin.

 

[Paulie]

There's already regulation in place to not allow tobacco companies to run TV ads, so why is this even an issue?

I mean, that pretty much sets the precedent for banning anything else where DTCA is concerned, no?

 

[manifold]

There's already regulation in place to not allow tobacco companies to run TV ads, so why is this even an issue?

I mean, that pretty much sets the precedent for banning anything else where DTCA is concerned, no?

The issue is whether the same regulation should be extended to not allow pharmaceutical companies to run TV ads.