Reining in drug advertising

| 2 Comments

Eight voices weigh in on the topic in an online debate on the NYT website.

Highlights:

Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine:

"The argument that ads educate consumers is self-evidently absurd. No one should look to an investor-owned company for objective, unbiased information about products it sells. Do we ask the Ford dealer whether his cars are any good?"

James P. Othmer, former advertising creative director:

"...relying upon network news pharmaceutical ads as a cultural touchstone, a recent visitor to our planet would think that when we are young our legs can't stop moving, that we menstruate four times a year, and we are ravaged by S.T.D.'s (despite taking great measures not to get pregnant), and we are extremely depressed; when we're middle-aged we desperately want to get pregnant but can't, perhaps because most men can't achieve an erection (despite the fact that many others are afflicted with four-hour "reactions"), and we are also bald, overweight and extremely depressed; and when we're old we are arthritic, forgetful, still depressed, riddled with cancer and either can't urinate at all or pee so much we have to wear diapers."

Jerry Avorn, Harvard internist:

"Unfortunately, the genie is probably out of the bottle on this. The industry and its allies in Congress will whine about the First Amendment to defend their right to advertise, and will probably win. Nor is taxing those ads likely to survive a legal challenge. Our best hope is for a newly emboldened F.D.A. to require the companies to provide a much fairer depiction of risks and benefits in these ads -- something that is clearly within its power. But as long as the nation spends $2 on these drug ads for every $1 spent on the agency regulating the industry, this combination of promotional incontinence and federal impotence will continue to generate considerable depression."

2 Comments

Yeah, but did you read the post by Ronald Bailey? Odd that the science correspondant of Reason is so divorced from it.

I don't see a quick end to this debate. On one hand is the question of social responsibility and on the other is the question of the right of these companies to advertise. Where do we draw the line and how do we strike a balance now?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Gary Schwitzer published on August 5, 2009 12:42 PM.

Star Tribune online ads block viewing of health care reform story was the previous entry in this blog.

CNN won't run ad critical of insurance industry exec's income is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Archives

Pages

Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Health

Add to Technorati Favorites