There is an argument to be made for consumer advertising for a drug like Viagra. Without awareness that an effective treatment exists, patients with ED or another embarrassing condition are not likely to bring it up with their doctor on their own, thus resulting in unnecessary suffering.
Another argument is that for various reasons some patients are unlikely to seek a second opinion, even when one is warranted. Consumer advertising is a way to present alternative treatment options to a patient whose doctor will not.
EDIT: And another thing: you guys don't even have affordable health care, so people see this shit they blatantly can't afford advertised at them relentlessly. That's why spam is so lucrative I guess: huge demand built for something virtually no-one can afford.
That's not true, because most people do have insurance. The major problem is that the costs are socialized by insurance, so people buy excessive healthcare because then can afford it (they aren't paying).
There are other countries where everybody has insurance and the government negotiates medical prices. Japan, Germany, and France are three examples. They have much lower costs than the U.S. and the best health outcomes in the world, measured on criteria like death rates after diagnosis of major disease.
Source: Healing America by T.R. Reid.
And Japan, for example, has an aging population of heavy smokers.
Yes, this is the true culture of America. Blind acceptance and worship of capitalism.
Research has found that 80% of over the counter and 60% of prescription drug ads are misleading or false.[1] ED mediations are one of the top offenders in false advertising in the study.
1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-finds-most-d...
One of the repeat offenders, said Faerber, were erectile dysfunction drugs. “The various drug companies phrase it differently, but they all play on the idea of being “ready” when the moment is right,” but Faerber said readiness is about more than a physical reaction, it’s an emotional state – especially where sex is concerned. “They implied more than a physiological response.”
Honestly though, it's a good system. I can't actually tell you what brand that ad is for, but I do know that I can talk to my doctor about it if I have issues with PE!
Also, I imagine that the cost of making and running the commercial would be pretty trivial compared to the profits to be made from the sale of the product.
Your point is well-taken for individuals who don't fall in epidemiological categories (a 20-something is less likely to be asked about sexual dysfunction than a 60 year-old). Still, questions about sexual function are standard medical history questions.
Education about the availability of drugs can be performed by disease foundations - indeed, disease foundations underwrite the most risky part of drug discovery, the basic research component. For more common disorders, hospitals, the CDC, the NIH and even Google are beginning to provide digestible information that highlight standard treatments. In our web era, the importance of TV advertising for disease education is likely less than it might have been in the 80s.
INT. BEDROOM - NIGHT
FADE IN ON: Supremely apathetic insomnia-afflicted MAN fantasizing
about putting a revolver to his head.
NARRATOR (V.O.)
(speaking at breakneck pace)
Side effects may include suicidal thoughts...
CUT TO BLACK as gunshot is heard. MOONLIGHT SONATA begins to play.
SUPER: Prozac - Because you deserve to be happy.I could have never imagined
"So I was listening to this one where it goes... Do you go to bed in the evening and wake up in the morning? And I went Oh my god! I totally got that! I should go see a doctor!"
Really couldn't have said it better myself.
These ads are also an important source of revenue for the networks. The TV stations are going to fight this as much as the drug companies will, if not more.
As you point to, some of these ads are long and long means expensive. I don't see how the networks won't fight this.
If it becomes illegal to advertise drugs to consumers, the interesting thing won't be what the drug companies does (they'll just target the doctors and save a ton of money). The interesting thing will be what TV will do to make up for lost revenue.
Really? They're all over YouTube and Hulu. They even come in a special widget with tiny text automatically scrolling on the right half and the ad playing in the left half. Just as uninformative and prosaic as the over-the-air spots.
Most perfectly satarised in Robocop. Which looks, every year, more and more like it's being used as a road map.
I think most of those rare side effects are not related to the drug at all. They just "happened" during the trials and they have to be included. At least in EU they are categorized by th frequency, so if the death is listed as 1 in 10000, I wouldn't consider it a side effect.
As a non-American, currently living in America, these ads are the strangest thing I've seen on TV.
They are the creepiest thing ever on television. The actors sit around dinner tables with family members speaking unnatural, FDA manipulated dialog ("Oh, I'm doing great, I've been taking Pradaxa for my afib, not caused by a heart valve problem!") Then you get the unending list of side effects read aloud ("death" almost always one) while the actors smile and stare off into space.
Occasionally, one of these ads will come in a 2 minute and 30 second variety that fills the entire commercial break.
A regulation I'd like to see is that all the side effects must be acted out in the commercial as they are read. Show the peacefully sleeping woman suddenly awakened, choking on her swelling tongue. Or a man running around with an actual 4+ hour erection.