Drug Advertising

In the United States advertising is done somewhat differently than in Canada. Lawyers advertise their services in a manner not quite done in Canada, reminiscent of what one might think of as 'ambulance-chasing' interests. Of course the United States is well known as representing a robustly litigious society. Doctors' overhead with respect to very expensive insurance coverage is a result of that.

When we're in the United States on our brief sojourns there, we're always struck by the pharmaceutical industry advertising. It's so blatantly in-your-face, so venal, so obviously meant to target people confused or upset or feeling helpless by diagnoses of illnesses the extent of which they cannot quite fathom. Diseases or conditions that have a truly deleterious impact on their physical and mental well-being, on their quality of life.

And when people feel so vulnerable, so helpless and occasionally hopeless, they grasp at straws. Any promises made by manufacturers of drug products that portend to make life better, decrease pain and misery will draw the attention of sufferers. And this is precisely what pharmaceutical manufacturers bank on when they pay big bucks to public relations companies to produce their enticing advertisements.

On the one hand, the drug's efficacy as guaranteed so glibly by its manufacturers seem hardly credible, on the other, one comes away with the distinct impression that the purveyors of such miracle anodynes think that the vast American public represents a collective of idiots to believe those promises of instant relief. The public is a cretin, enabling the drug manufacturers to enjoy huge profits.

So it's more than a little interesting to read of recently revealed research results with respect to direct-to-consumer advertising on U.S. television. A new study seems to reach the conclusion that illness-specific drugs promising immediate relief for consumers have not resulted in people approaching their doctors in great numbers to prescribe for them.

A joint study by Harvard Medical School and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research looked into the commercials' consumer impacts and came to the conclusion that they have minimally affected prescription sales. Initially, it would seem, there is a small surge in requests for the advertised medication, then it subsides and there is no additional call for them.

Logically, one might assume that the hopeful consumer subscribes to the use of the promised miracle, then discovering to his dismay that it avails them no relief, discards the drug. It's possible the medical community prescribing the drug, discovers through patient interviews that it isn't worthwhile, and through word of mouth or simple disuse, the ongoing advertising produces no long-term benefit to the drug maker.

It seems corrupt and downright perverse, in any event, that pharmaceutical companies are permitted to advertise their wares, even though their use can only be accessed through prescription, necessitating that the patient, becoming aware through advertising what the claims are, must then approach his or her medical practitioner for prescription.

If a condition exists one may presume that the patient would approach the doctor for a diagnosis and clarification, and the doctor, not the patient, would then determine the best conceivable protocol and allied medicine to treat the condition. Yet New Zealand and the United States permit this direct-to-consumer advertising.

It's obvious the drug lobby is more than a little influential in persuading lawmakers that this is a legitimate form of business practise and that's pernicious folly indeed.