Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should congress ban drug advertising. POLL

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:39 AM
Original message
Should congress ban drug advertising. POLL
Here's a poll that actually makes sense! I just received notice via email. The Yeses are winning!

http://www.vote.com/health /

They claim they will forward the results to congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
theivoryqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. especially those "male enhancement" drugs
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 12:48 AM by theivoryqueen
bothersome and freaky. Also - all those ads that only say the name, but not what the drug does. WTCheney?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Dang, I forgot..you're right...all those
'guess what this is for' drugs on TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOHICA06 Donating Member (886 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Exactly, on the guess
what I'm for advertisements!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. It wouldn't take an act of Congress
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 01:39 AM by depakote_kid
All that would be required would be for the FDA to return to its pre-1997 regulations that required all "direct to consumer" to contain what's called a "brief summary," which contains accurate scientific information regarding the drugs useage and potential side effects. Like many things in science, "brief summaries," aren't all that brief and their requiring their inclusion made TV advertising impractical.

Even requiring the addition of the information required in FDA-approved Patient Package Insert (PPI's) would be a deterrant to expensive TV advertising- and although it wouldn't completely solve the problem, it would at least ensure that people got somewhat accurate information in a format that they can understand. This latter point is important, as the FDA has in all but the most egregious cases stopped enforcing regulations requiring that pharmaceutical companies not engage in "puffing" and distortions about their products.

See, e.g. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1019-03.htm

As it stands, Americans (unlike citizens in other countries) end up paying much higher prices for the privilege of being bombarded misleading ads about prescription drugs.

Something needs to be done- and there's no way Congress will buck PhRMa. Let's hope Kerry shows more sense and has more integrity on this issue than Bill Clinton did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Wasn't it Congress that made the change in 1997?
I'm not sure, but I thought it was a Congressional vote that permitted the drug Co's to advertise restriction drugs. If so, I would think it would take Congress to change it back.

It's not only Viagra, it's all the damn drugs. I laughed last night when I paid partial attention to so drug ad. The side effects were worse than the problem they were trying to cure. No I don't even remember what the thing was, but I did remark to my family "Here's another reason to make thins shit go away.

The drug Co's keep saying the ads are for education of the public. but that's BS. I want my Doctor to tell me about possible new treatments...that's his job! I don't need someone who's beem trained for a few weeks to make the decision/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. It was FDA regs
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 04:35 AM by depakote_kid
Actually, the process began back in the 80's with an arthritis drug, prompting the FDA to request a voluntary moratorium. In 1997, they announced "clarifications" to the direct to consumer rules- these took full effect in 1999.

The next version of the rules have been under review for some time- there were public hearings last fall- and of course the FDA's position is that the genie is now out of the bottle.

That could change, of course- provided that a Kerry administration has the political courage to stand up to PhRMa- who as you mention, claims that their television ads are "one of the largest and most successful public health information campaigns in U.S. history."

That's a crock, of course- laypersons are being marketed the newest most expensive drugs in the hopes that they will bug their physicians for them- often when generics or even over the counters are just as efficacious. People don't realize that, though, They just want the newest thing- and most people aren't paying attention to the quick, voice over about possible side effects.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I guess I should start bugging Kerry about this.
I have NEVER met ANYONE who likes, wants, or enjoys the drug ads. No one even thinks that they are informative!

Maybe a lot of letters toyour congressmen and the FDA can make this nonsense go away!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. If this is about perscription drugs, I vote yes
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 10:39 AM by rocknation
It defeats the entire purpose of requiring a perscripton. Even worse, people who do "ask their doctor" and don't get the answer they want either seek doctors who will perscribe the drugs, or buy them off the black market that's developed. I'd like to think that any doctor of mine is capbable of staying informed about the latest in perscripton drugs, and of telling me if they're appropriate.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Even the prescribing process is corrupted in America
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 05:13 PM by depakote_kid
In addition to the 3 billion dollars they spend on direct marketing to consumers, drug companies are spending about 15 billion dollars per year on marketing to doctors. That's the equivalent of about $10,000 per year per physician.

Moreover, due to suppressing research and potential side effects, some of the newer drugs that have entered the market since the FDA "streamlined" the approval process in 1992 have ended up causing thousands of "unanticipated" adverse events, including many fatalities.

If anyone's interested, there's a good, short and easily readable article that outlines the extent of the problem here:

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/pharmaceutical-c...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
9. Vote.com is a right wing shill site
I NEVER vote at vote.com. Toe Sucker is an email address harvester.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. But today I voted in 5 of the polls...
...and the results all went my way. Liberals must be participating more these days. Poor Dicky Boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC