Good for her – finally, patients are starting to speak out against drug advertising:
No, I am not a doctor, and neither are most people, and I believe it is unconscionable for drug manufactures to advertise; to push their products to non-medically-trained persons. This policy ““ this gimmick ““ sets patients up to undermine treatment plans that their doctors have chosen after careful study and thorough knowledge of the patient. People should not be encouraged to believe that they know better than doctors regarding how to treat their symptoms. Such unfounded confidence in one’s medical knowledge has come about because untrained persons are being bombarded with slick ads by drugpusherscompanies.This setting up; this encouragement; of conflict between doctors and patients is unethical and potentially very harmful. I thought so the first time I saw one of the brand-pushing ads, and now I only feel more strongly so. None of the cleverly-worded disclaimers makes me feel any more comfortable about an advertising practice that encourages non-medical persons to believe that they know and understand more than they really do; that gives people the idea of doing battle with medical doctors in order to get what they want and think they need.
Related posts:
- Can patient empowerment be taken too far?
- How Twitter can strengthen the doctor-patient relationship
- Expressing medical options in economic terms
- Hospitalists and the importance of the patient-doctor interaction
- Is it wrong to send delinquent patient accounts to collections?
- Soft sell
- Patient hand-offs are a source of serious patient harm
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 13 comments }
Nobody is “pushing” anything on anybody. The woman making the commentary exemplifies the non-thinking idiotic sheep that unfortunately makes up a substantial segment of the population today. Don’t confuse people like her with too much information. Instead put the carrot attached to a stick attached to her head to lead her to where she needs to be led. Or better yet, turn on the idiot box with some celebritard newstory… such appears to be the level of information and exercise of “intellect” that one such as her might be most comfortable with.
I believe that most people know to trust their doctors.
And, sometimes doctors need a little push.
For example, today it is routine for gallbladders to be removed laparoscopically (with the use of a camera and small incisions) but when this concept was first introduced around 1984 surgeons were totally against it.
The public demanded it and finally got it.
Today as gallbladders are removed patients go home the following day with a smaller scar and less pain.
However, there is only so much information that can be given in a 30 second commercial.
Patients should know to investigate what they hear on TV and open a dialog with their physicians regarding what they heard.
Unfortunately, physicians (who are already short for time ) will need to spend a lot more time with their patients answering questions. A problem.
A solution to the problem could be websites such as this one. Where patients can learn from a licensed health professional and investigate a matter until they are satisfied.
Just a thought.
-AH.
I know this author and she’s a very smart woman. But what makes her more right than those of us who have actually gotten something beneficial out of an ad? Doctors simply cannot know every drug that’s out there for every condition, and some drugs have side effects that doctors don’t think are very important. What’s wrong with patients, especially those of us with complicated chronic illnesses who meet many different physicians as we navigate the health care system, gathering information for ourselves and using it to help our doctors help us?
Nothing, Lisa. Physicians just don’t have much respect for the intellect of the public.
There is a reason that these products are restricted to prescription status.
If non-doctors want to decide which drugs are right for them, perhaps the fight should be against the fda – to push for ambien, lunesta, viagra etc. to be over-the-counter (i think that’d be crazy, but if you want to trust everybody to not be “idiotic sheep” and interpret all the medical info out there, that’s the way to go)
by the way, there are sites like medameds.com where you can “order” viagra etc. – i don’t know how they get away with that but if you want to bypass your doctor for this crap, go ahead!
cut me out of the loop if you “know” that ambien or cialis etc is what you need. then i won’t need to go through all the stupid ordeals with your insurance company to convince them you need a drug that you don’t.
“Trust?”
What an odd piece of terminology for inclusion in the subject discussion. Here is what I “trust.” I trust that providers, like any other group of people will work to keep enhance their fiscal and societal status by any and all means at their disposal. That is as far as trust goes. Perhaps ye should be judged by the level of self-import that ye put out? Yet, and unsurprisingly, there is always an excuse when gatekeeping goes bad. How is that the virtuous gatekeepers did not know about the problems with Vioxx? Let me guess, it was the manufacturer’s fault…
RIGHT ON, HAPPYMAN! Wonder how to lessen these “preauthorizations” fueled by idiotic demands by public who believes that just because they pay insurance premiums or on the gov’t dole, they can decide for themselves what treatments they need. Of course, you’re not a “nice” doctor if you do not pander to their demands…and they will go to the next minute clinic down the corner. Oh, life!
VIOXX? Indeed it was the manufacturer’s fault:
1. they hid information from the FDA
2. they had panel agents in their pocket
3. they had lobbyists in the agency as well as in your living room and magazines in the form of DTC advertising with Dorothy skating to your and her hearts’ content [and peril?] LMAO
Here is how it works. If you want to play gatekeeper than no excuses are acceptable (kind of like auditioning for the part of diety, no mortal mistakes are acceptable). If you don’t know enough about the underlying biochemistry of what it is that you are prescribing (hint: all of those years of purported schooling) than please don’t apply for the part of gatekeeper. It is beyond amazing to see how many of the sheeple are in support for being led by the nose when it comes to being uninformed (is ignorance a virtue in this country these days) and failing to hold accountable to the same degree as the privileges to whom such are granted.
You scientific illiteracy is showing.
If you think that the correct conclusion can be reached about Vioxx by mere conjecture or an understanding of the biochemistry ivolved, then you do not have enough of a scientific background to have meaningful opinion on the topic.
The conclusion that Vioxx was dangerous could only have been reach through epidemiology. Fact is that the manufacturer burried this evidence while, at the same time, advertising so hard that Vioxx became the single most requested med in my office (even more than Viagra).
“The conclusion that Vioxx was dangerous could only have been reach through epidemiology.”
Nonsense. To hide the lack of knowledge of one’s understanding of the deterministic processes governing the function of Vioxx behind epidemiology is purely fallacious. Again, what purpose do the gatekeepers serve if they don’t perform the function of gatekeeping?
Happyman,
I’m not claiming that I know everything and don’t need a doctor. But I don’t expect my doctor to know everything, either. If that were true there would be no such thing as the second opinion (did you know that if you seek opinions from different doctors they actually offer you different options?) I prefer to be an educated patient, able to intelligently discuss my options with my physician, especially since I have a complex disease. Do most doctors out there really have a problem with that? Would physicians prefer patients who merely do as they’re told, and trust that the options one doctor offers are all that’s out there?
Lisa,
do you really think the ads are “educational”??? they are either for
1: “lifestyle” drugs for sleep & hard-ons; or
2: “me-too” drugs like the purple pill nexium (w/dr.mandy patinkin from chicago hope) or lipitor – drugs that have much cheaper equivalents that have been on the market for years and are as effective (e.g. prilosec, now over-the-counter and like a tenth the cost of nexium)
pfizer doesn’t even hide the fact that they’re marketing viagra as an afrodisiac rather than a legitimate treatment for erectile dysfunction. They air on primetime tv with the most expensive ad time available – because pfizer & glaxo & astrazeneca etc. know they can get laypeople to feel empowered to push their doctor to prescribe anything.
and you know what? it works like a charm.
i heard there are cialis ads in SEVENTEEN magazine. i never heard of an organic-based erectile dysfunction among adolescents, but i’m not a pediatrician.
the phenomenon sickens me, as hopefully it does most primary care doctors.
http://www.nofreelunch.org/
Comments on this entry are closed.