Drug ads sell a problem, not a solution

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:08:08 -0400

[sSRI-Research] Drug ads sell a problem, not a solution

 

 

 

 

 

 

fyi - *From this article -* * " It also funds patient advocacy groups such

as Children With Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD), and doctors who

push for expanded definitions of disease, among a host of other things.

(When the definition of ADD expanded in the 1980s, the number of kids

tagged with this problem increased by 50 percent.) " Vince

 

*

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0821/p09s01-coop.html

 

from the August 21, 2006 edition -

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0821/p09s01-coop.html

 

Drug ads sell a problem, not a solution

 

*By Jonathan Rowe*

*POINT REYES STATION, CALIF.*

 

*It is an old saying in the advertising trade that you sell the problem,

not the solution.* That helps explain why the media today are awash with

images of disease. Erectile dysfunction, depression, stress, attention

deficit disorder, on and on - you can't escape them and the sense of

looming peril that they conjure up.

 

Politicians sell terror and fear; pharmaceutical companies sell disease.

Every state and stage of existence has become a pathology in need of

pharmaceutical " intervention, " and life itself is a petri dish of

biochemical deficiency and need. Shyness is now " social anxiety

disorder. " A twitchy tendency has become " restless leg syndrome. " Three

decades ago the head of Merck dreamed aloud of the day when the

definition of disease would be so broad that his company could " sell to

everyone, " like chewing gum.

 

That day is rapidly approaching, if it's not already here. " We're

increasingly turning normal people into patients, " said Dr. Lisa M.

Schwartz of the Dartmouth Medical School. " The ordinary experiences of

life become a diagnosis, which makes healthy people feel like they're

sick. "

 

In one sense, the ads have been successful. The Kaiser Family Foundation

found that every dollar drug companies spend on ads brings more than

four dollars in additional sales. But for most others, the result has

been soaring medical insurance costs, toxic side effects, and new

tensions between doctors and patients, who increasingly badger doctors

for the drugs they've seen on TV.

 

One study found that 30 percent of Americans have made these demands. A

Minnesota doctor complained recently that patients now push him for

sleep medications " when maybe they just need to go to bed on a more

regular basis. "

 

But perhaps the worst part is that prescription drug ads have immersed

us all in a pervasive drug culture that seems to have no boundaries. We

are being reduced to helpless " consumers " who have no capacity to deal

with challenges other than by taking a pill. Last month Tim Pawlenty,

the Republican governor of Minnesota, called for a moratorium on

prescription drug ads. It's about time.

 

For most of the past half century, there were tight restrictions on the

general advertising of prescription drugs. These require doctors'

guidance for a reason; so why should Madison Avenue get involved? But

under heavy pressure from the drug and advertising industries, the

government backed down in the late 1990s, and that started the tsunami.

 

Spending on drug ads for the general public more than tripled between

1996 and 2001. It is now some $4 billion a year, which is more than

twice what McDonald's spends on ads. In 1994, the typical American had

seven prescriptions a year, which is no small number. By 2004, that was

up to 12 a year. Homebuilders are touting medicine cabinets that are

" triple-wide. "

 

The industry says this is all about " educating " the consumer. But an ad

executive was more candid when he said - boasted, really - that the goal

is to " drive patients to their doctors. " Reuters Business Insight, a

publication for investors, explained that the future of the industry

depends on its ability to " create new disease markets. " " The coming

years, " it said, " will bear greater witness to the corporate-sponsored

creation of disease. "

 

The Kaiser study found that drug ads increase sales for entire

categories of drugs, not just the one in question. The ads really are

selling the disease more than a cure.

 

Advertising is just one way the industry has sought to accomplish this

goal. It also funds patient advocacy groups such as Children With

Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD), and doctors who push for expanded

definitions of disease, among a host of other things. (When the

definition of ADD expanded in the 1980s, the number of kids tagged with

this problem increased by 50 percent.)

 

But advertising is the most pervasive and aggressive way of selling

sickness. It also is the hardest to justify. Medicine is supposed to be

about science, not huckstering; about healing people, not persuading

more of them that they are sick. There are far better ways to inform the

public about health issues than to spend billions of dollars a year

pushing pills.

 

This is why more than 200 medical school professors recently called for

an end to prescription drug ads, and why close to 40 health and seniors

groups have joined them. Even the American Medical Association, many

members of which have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, has

urged restrictions. Washington should listen to these doctors. As

Governor Pawlenty put it, we need to put " the decisionmaking back where

it should be - on an informed basis between the patient and the doctor. "

 

.. /Jonathan Rowe is issues director at Commercial Alert and a fellow at

the Tomales Bay Institute. He is a former Monitor staff writer./

 

*FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of

which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to

advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral,

ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This

material is distributed without profit.

*