Reason Writers Around Town: Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey Defends Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising at the New York Times
Over at the New York Times' opinion blog, Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey mixes it up with a gaggle of medical paternalists who think that consumers are better off being kept in the dark about new medicines that might help them. The question under debate: Should Drug Ads Be Reined In?
As the Times reports, some members of Congress want to ban direct-to-consumer ads because they evidently believe that people who suffer from erectile dysfunction, restless leg syndrome, chronic fatigue, male urinary urgency, or irritable bowel syndrome should just buck up and not bother their doctors with their trivial complaints. Congressman James P. Moran (D-Va.) is so offended by ads for Viagra and Levitra that he wants to ban them from prime-time television on grounds of "decency." Can prohibition of tampon and Yaz ads be far behind?
As Bailey points out:
…in 2003, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University and Harris Interactive reported in the journal Health Affairs the results of a survey of 3,000 adults of the effects of direct-to-consumer drug advertising. The researchers found that these ads appear "to affect patients' behavior, resulting in more physician visits that detect treatable disease." In fact, the survey established that of the 35 percent of the respondents who discussed these advertisements with their physicians, 25 percent received a new diagnosis. Nearly half of the new diagnoses involved high priority conditions like arthritis, high cholesterol or diabetes. In addition, more than half of the respondents reported that their doctors took actions other than prescribing the advertised drug.
For more head over to the Times opinion blog here.
