austin bipolar
If the sale of "illegal substances" is a crime, what about legal drug trafficking? Pharmaceutical manufacturers, it is. In 1997, companies Hawking became aggressive pharmaceutical products directly to consumers, after generations out of the need for drugs and their eligibility for the medical professionals.
TV commercials and print ads urge the public to inform their physicians that they want the prescription drugs that are being pushed. Buy Nexium, "the purple pill," they say. Fix its acidity. Only now is called acid reflux disease, " with all the potential dangers that implies the new name for the disease of bad luck. Or a pill that can help with "bipolar disorder", "plate deadly artery, or perhaps some new "syndrome".
Watching TV at night, it's easy to see ten pressive drugs or twenty ads. All this aggressive marketing of drugs is perfectly legal. You can go to jail for smoking "grass", but okay drugs to their children to behave well and, hopefully, learn, or you are taking medication to cope with problems such as ED, prostate, arterial plaque, arthritis, menopause, and at infinity.
Beware, however, we are told, endless drone about the potential side effects of their products. Everything from gas to headaches to fainting to possible liver and kidney damage, and the warning – a veritable litany of risks of taking medicines.
And what has all this? One outside the drug culture of control, with mixed messages coming at us from all directions, confusing and diverting our attention that's it. No "do drugs," unless of course you happen to be the drugs of choice that drug companies are pressing.
The reason, of course, is obvious: to increase sales. And it works.
From 1996 to 2005, the amount of money spent on advertising for drug companies increased from 11.4 billion U.S. dollars to 29.9 million. (The New England Journal of Medicine, August 16, 2007). A study by Elizabeth Ann Almasi (Stanford University), "The relationship between Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising and Prescription fees" includes the following information:
"… The requirements for the fifty most heavily advertised drugs grew at a rate six times higher (24.6%) than other drugs (4.3%) between 1999 and 2000."
"In addition to recipes, DTC (direct to consumer advertising) has also increased demand for other forms of treatment. 14% of patients revealed health problems as a result of publicity. "
"A study by Murray (2004) found that 24% of all people scheduled a visit with your physician specifically to talk about a prescription drug advertising. "
"Unfortunately, It also gave doctors 12% of ads generated requests for prescription drugs that do not believe that the therapy would be useful. "
"In patients who recalled having seen a DTC ad, 94% remember the television promotions, newspaper mentions and 62% of magazine ads, and 22% remember the radio spots (Kaiser Health Survey, 2005) "
"Spending on DTC is highly concentrated on products that generally the treatment of chronic diseases and have a low incidence of side effects (Rosenthal et al, 2002). "
Z Magazine said: "A study of family physicians and 71 percent felt DTC (Direct to Consumer) ads pressure doctors into prescribing drugs that normally do not prescribe. And, according to a study by K. Henry Kaiser Foundation, when patients request a specific drug, doctors prescribe that 44 percent of the time "." Z "also concluded that" the ads are often unnecessary or 'lifestyle' drugs that fuel the belief that there is a "pill for every ill. Medicines for thinning hair, toenail fungus, and other problems are very important, promote inexpensive treatments such as water pills for high blood pressure are ignored. "
The Publicity Department of the University of Texas at Austin, says, "… the First Amendment, imposes limitations on government repression of expression. Advertising is recognized by the courts as a form of commercial speech. commercial speech has been defined by the Court as speech "which does nothing more than propose a commercial transaction." Although the courts have never recognized as being as valuable as some other forms of speech, commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. "
So what to do with anything? If the government to prohibit all direct to consumer advertising (DTC) drug? Unfortunately, that is not possible – because advertising is also considered freedom of expression, and we can not deprive pharmaceutical companies of their right to speak, that is, for advertising.
If DTC Advertising can not be banned, what can you do? Can the FDA against drug companies hype "educating the public about the fact that most of what is beamed our way is not designed to educate as much as to scare potential customers? I do not know but my feeling is, do not expect it.
Nothing sells like fear, and marketing drugs directly to consumers is based in fear.
target = "_blank">
© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline comments on his blog at "opinionfest.com.
About the Author:
Harris Sherline is a retired Certified Public Accountant and executive. His diverse business background includes experience as a partner in a public accounting firm, as a principal in a number of business ventures and as CEO of a hospital. His conservative commentaries appear weekly in two Santa Barbara newspapers. In addition, his op-ed articles currently appear regularly on three widely read web sites and his own weblog,
Opinionfest.com.
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Pushing Drugs
Spring 2009 Austin Bipolar
