> I'd say that's a good thing, no?

No.

The underlying issue you've described there would be better treated by educating people to talk to their doctors about their actual problems, not around marketed solutions <sic> to perceived symptoms.

Which is what happens in most other western societies (UK, EU, AU, NZ, etc).

The fact that absent that kind of direct marketing, there isn't the same kind of opioid crisis may be merely correlative ... but I'll let you google around for studies that indicate causative effects in play there.

Two points:

Look at my other post. I'm sourcing actual data that shows benefits and drawbacks. Care to source something to back up your claims?

You realize that a decent amount of DTC in the US is around disease awareness and not a specific product, right? It's those commercials that say "Disease X has new treatments that can help you, ask your doctor." Products are not mentioned.

BTW - NZ allows for DTC the last I heard.

> Look at my other post. I'm sourcing actual data that shows benefits and drawbacks. Care to source something to back up your claims?

My reply to your comment came before your 'other posts' .. consequently they were not taken into account during my reply. I note that your 'other post' points to a link at the US FDA that includes this caveat:

"It has come to our attention that readers may be projecting these results beyond the surveyed samples. We remind readers that this was designed to be an exporatory look at this issue. We caution readers that these analyses were not weighted back to the population."

> You realize that a decent amount of DTC in the US is around disease awareness and not a specific product, right?

I am not, and I would welcome a breakdown of the ratio of public-service non-sponsored content vs 'specific product' advertisement ... if indeed such a separation could be determined.

This is of course allowing for a large leeway of 'disease awareness' versus 'drug marketing' differentiation.

> BTW - NZ allows for DTC the last I heard.

"Such industry funded ‘health information’ campaigns have been banned in almost all industrialised countries since the 1940s. New Zealand and the United States are lonely exceptions.

"To what does New Zealand owe this dubious honour? While most other developed countries enacted legislation prohibiting this practice approximately three quarters of a century ago, the New Zaland Medicines Act 1981 failed to address DTCA, seemingly more by accident than design."

(from https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/... )

So that's an accidental 2m pro-people for your argument.

I Googled, and found that (1) research into it was financed by the media and pharmaceutical industries, (2) the FDA lifted the moratorium/ban on it around 1999, after heavy lobbying, (3) regulations around it center on truthfulness of the product claims and complete risk disclosures (free and cheap alternative treatments will never get advertised, of course), (4) since then ad spending is up exponentially, as are drug use and drug prices, (5) after advertising was allowed, research into this stopped, I found nothing recent, just rehashing old research.

To me it is pretty clear what is going on here (and no, it's not a good thing)

You're looking at the wrong study. It was a survey financed by the FDA, not by the media or manufacturers.[1]

Findings:

- Most physicians agreed that because their patient saw a DTC ad, he or she asked thoughtful questions during the visit.

- Many physicians thought that DTC ads made their patients more involved in their health care.

- The study demonstrated that when a patient asked about a specific drug, 88 percent of the time they had the condition that the drug treated. And 80 percent of physicians believed their patients understood what condition the advertised drug treats.

Not all positive though:

- Physicians thought the ads did not convey information about risks and benefits equally well.

So if you had said DTC has pluses and minuses I would have agreed with you. Blanket "it's terrible" just demonstrates that person's lack of knowledge of the data that's out there.

[1]https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm14356...

Where's the part about the undiagnosed?

> Plus, opioids have never been advertised on TV, so you point isn't relevant.

Yes, but products related to them have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxegol

So what? That product reduces the efficacy of opioids so people can take a dump.

Which I would argue is a worthwhile product to advertise to patients. It's more related to comfort of the patient than treating a disease.

I would argue opioid constipation is more important to the patient than the doctor.

If your doctor can't diagnose you without you asking for medicine you saw on TV, either your doctor is an idiot, or you suffer from a huge communication problem.

Your self-diagnosis isn't the failure of doctors, it's the failure of people (especially in the US) to go see a doctor, most often due to the cost.

Sure, trying to scare the general public into questioning whether or not they have diseases is one way to go about things, but I shouldn't have to explain why this is not ideal and why the rest of the developed world takes a different approach.

Regarding your last point, I would say it is relevant. I mean have you ever stopped to question the reasons why America leads the world in opioid abuse?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41701718

> Most people who ask their doctor about a drug they saw on TV have the disease. Of those, a small percentage were undiagnosed, thus the TV commercial helped them with self-diagnosis.

This is one of the things driving the US rates of over testing, over diagnosis, and over treatment. Some people are helped, but many are harmed. See, for example, prostate cancer. Many men die with, not of, prostate cancer. The treatment for prostate cancer can be aggressive and can seriously degrade quality of life.