Reason.com
New at Reason
Why is Dr. Frist afraid of educated patients? Kerry Howley plugs direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|7.19.05 @ 4:36PM|#
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Drug advertisements are why I have a mom now. She has lupus and my parents follow drug development. A commercial was on for a new drug so she researched it and found that it would have adverse nasty reactions with her current medication. Months later a doctor recomended a new drug that was on the market, but having allready researched it she pointed the complication out to the doctor. His ability to know all the reactions of the dozens of drugs she was on paled in comparison to her own research, research she wouldn't have done on that particular medicine were it not for the commercials.
|7.19.05 @ 4:45PM|#
I disagree with Kerry's overblown, one-sided piece, but this is pure gold:
"On July 1, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), fresh from declaring Terry Shiavo bright-eyed and unvegetated from the Senate floor, railed against the dangers of letting Americans self-diagnose on the basis of paltry information."
Ha ha ha
|7.19.05 @ 5:19PM|#
I personally find drug ads to be beneficial. Through direct-to-consumer advertising, I found out about a newer medication that I now use that has helped me a lot. The interesting thing is that it had been around for a while, but none of my doctors had ever mentioned it. That was probably because many doctors feel the older medication is better because it does not have some side effects that the newer one does. I understand the side effects and risks of the newer one, but I always ask for it now because it solved a very serious problem I had with tolerating the older medication. I have specifically ask for the new one and explain why I want it, but once I lay out why it's important my doctors have always gone along with it. That's why I view direct to consumer ads as a good thing that might help certain patients who otherwise get a kind of "filtering" effect because physicians choose not to present certain drug options to them. Of course, it puts a responsibility on the patient that some people might prefer not to have.
|7.19.05 @ 5:22PM|#
And of course those who don't want that responsability can still just ask the physicians advise. Maybe if the law weren't geared towards equating doctors with all-knowing gods we could avoid some of this mess.
|7.19.05 @ 5:34PM|#
I personally find drug ads to be extremely annoying. If I hear Mandy Patinkin demanding me to "ask my doctor" -- or the phrase "sexual side-effects" -- one more time I'm going to throw my TV out the window. However, I'm glad they help some people.
|7.19.05 @ 5:42PM|#
She has lupus and my parents follow drug development. A commercial was on for a new drug so she researched it and found that it would have adverse nasty reactions with her current medication.
I'm just curious why, if you research drug development for a certain condition, you would need to see a drug advertisement to know of it's existence? If the research is available, and if a person is looking for the drugs to a certain condition, they would be able to find it much easier without needing an advertisement.
Maybe if the law weren't geared towards equating doctors with all-knowing gods we could avoid some of this mess.
In that, I agree with you. The average person doesn't need to see a doctor for over 90% of their health issues. Yet, doctors are made the gatekeepers for prescription drugs, and having their time in such high demand drives up the costs of healthcare as well. Each time I sprain an ankle or throw out my back or get a sore throat or a severe case of the flu, all I hear is - you should go see a doctor about that. Why? I can tell you exactly what the doctor is going to say, I can tell you exactly what drugs or tests will be recommended, so why the hell do I need to go see a doctor?
|7.19.05 @ 5:53PM|#
metalgrid,
I think the point is, like all advertising, to make you want something you didn't even know you wanted. But in this case, it's drugs that you may *actually* need but didn't know it. So in that way, it's less annoying that most advertising. Yet I can't imagine I would let my own health depend on the chance viewing of a commercial.
|7.19.05 @ 6:03PM|#
My folks are active on news groups, but not everyone is on the same regiment. Also There's a lot of research being done and limited time to sift through it. It was a matter of chance that my mother learned about this drugs existence, and it was because of advertising. Also direct advertising taught me about the best eyedrops on the market, now I don't have to choose if I'll be wearing contacts today for night-time or day-time (but they're not perscription).
|7.19.05 @ 6:19PM|#
Why is Dr. Frist afraid of educated patients?
Because they'll realize, after his telepathic "diagnosis" of Terry Sciavo, that he's left medicine for Congress because he's really a quack.
I'm just curious why, if you research drug development for a certain condition, you would need to see a drug advertisement to know of it's existence? If the research is available, and if a person is looking for the drugs to a certain condition, they would be able to find it much easier without needing an advertisement.
You're assuming that (a) the research is "available" (to whom? How?), b) the doctor knows about it, and c) the doctor has actually read the specs on the drug beyond what the pharma rep told him in the sales pitch. You can't assume any of that, from my experience.
I can tell you exactly what the doctor is going to say, I can tell you exactly what drugs or tests will be recommended, so why the hell do I need to go see a doctor?
On that I agree with you about 80% of the time, but on those occasions where an unfamiliar prescription is needed, I tend to go with the licensed, insured (and therefore sue-able) professional. Why? Because if you wind up in the hospital due to an allergic reaction, or conflicting medications, you have no one to blame but yourself. Kind of like explaining how your house burning down after you rewired the electricals "isn't your fault".
|7.19.05 @ 6:24PM|#
captain awesome,
If your mom's doc had given her that script, and she woulda gone to the pharmacy, it's pretty certain that the pharmacist's computer would have caught the complication. There's so many drugs that it's impractical for anyone to learn all the complications when there're computer programs which do the same.
|7.19.05 @ 6:35PM|#
Why is Dr. Frist afraid of educated patients?
He worries they may become educated voters...
|7.19.05 @ 6:40PM|#
That's probably true Andy, thank god for computers. Phamasists know same scary shit two. My old roommate worked with one and he was always recomending crazy shit if you wanted to kill someone and never be caught. Also, I had friends in San Diego that would skip the whole Propecia perscription thing, go to Mexico and get Prostgaurd and cut the pills for the lower dose, at a much lower cost. Improvisding is awesome, the pharmasist even said there would be no differences in effect when my friend asked about his idea.
|7.19.05 @ 6:53PM|#
Improvisding is awesome, the pharmasist even said there would be no differences in effect when my friend asked about his idea.
Captain-
Its awesome to see refreshing honesty with that pharmacist. He/She could have simply said don't do it and left your friends to chance with fate. If I could, I would nominate this pharmicist to be the next drug czar!
|7.19.05 @ 7:09PM|#
Alright joe, I'll bite- what exactly is the other side?
I'll admit drug ads are annoying, but certainly not any more annoying than a hundred other categories of products we see advertised.
The amount of information available on the internet has made requiring a doctor for most drugs obsolete. Though I wouldn't hesitate to consult one if I had serious enough questions about a drug, that needed more consulting than a pharmacist could supply in a two minute conversation over the counter. At this point, requiring a prescription from a doctor for most drugs smacks of anachronistic protectionism.
By the way, great articles on the topic of prescription drugs in this month's Reason, Ms. Howley.
|7.19.05 @ 8:13PM|#
"Its awesome to see refreshing honesty with that pharmacist. He/She could have simply said don't do it and left your friends to chance with fate. If I could, I would nominate this pharmicist to be the next drug czar"
Not all pharmacists put the drug companies' profits over their patients' finances all the time...
|7.19.05 @ 8:59PM|#
The nice thing about ads is that it potentially provides an alternative to the "preferred" drug pushed by the doctor. But then if doctors actually worked for the patients and didn't double book every 15 minute time slot, they would have the time to actually provide thoughtful answers to questions instead of the "I know best" bullshit I so often get. I can think of five doctors that are in desperate need of a bitch slapping. Especially the one who responded "it's regulated, complain to your congressman" when I asked for an accounting of the bill, the third time. Sorry for the rant, but only one doc in over 30 years hasn't been a monkey and he retired.
So when are they going to ban the ads for antacids, anti-fungal cream, cortisone, aspirin, ad infinitum.
|7.20.05 @ 10:02AM|#
The amount of information available on the internet has made requiring a doctor for most drugs obsolete. Though I wouldn't hesitate to consult one if I had serious enough questions about a drug, that needed more consulting than a pharmacist could supply in a two minute conversation over the counter.
I'm shaking my head at this one. Few doctors have as much knowledge of drugs as your run-of-the-mill pharmacist. And most pharmacists would prefer to discuss the medications with the patients over filling out insurance forms and all the other bureaucratic work. The problem is most pharmacies are understaffed and if a pharmacist spends 5 minutes talking with one patient the next patient in line is probably pissed off because "I want my god damn drugs right NOW!" and has no courtesy.
Doctors just avoid the whole problem by making their patients wait in line in another room. It's "authority show-biz" for most doctors.
|7.20.05 @ 11:29AM|#
jc- I guess I wasn't clear, but I certainly didn't mean to imply a lack of knowledge on the part of the pharmacist, but rather the practical time limit from working in retail, which you point out. Also, the point of going to a doctor would not be knowledge about a drug, but knowledge about *me*, as in an examination and a lengthier discussion, things that don't happen now anyway.