Loading...
Drug company marketing executives hate having to warn people about dangerous drug complications and side effects. Imagine a car salesman trying to sell a car but having to warn customers that there is a 1 in 10 chance the ignition switch will fail or a 1 in 5 chance the brakes won’t work. Not very many cars would be sold if that were the situation. That’s why drug companies are probably thrilled with the FDA’s new proposal to reduce the number of side effect warnings in drug ads.
If you watch television at all, chances are very good that you have seen commercials for prescription drugs like the sleeping pill Lunesta. The Luna moth comes gliding in the window, bringing restful sleep to an insomniac who had been tossing and turning.
Side Effects Announced
Lucky for her she falls asleep before the announcer warns:
“Don’t drive or operate machinery until you feel fully awake. Walking, eating, driving or engaging in other activities while asleep without remembering it the next day have been reported.
“Lunesta should not be taken together with alcohol. Abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. In depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. Alcohol may increase these risks.
“Allergic reactions such as tongue or throat swelling occur rarely and may be fatal. Side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. Ask your doctor if Lunesta is right for you.”
There are dozens of other prescription drugs that have been advertised on television. These commercials often contain long lists of scary potential side effects.
Celebrex Warnings
The Celebrex ad, for example, warns:
“All prescription NSAIDs like Celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. They all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death.”
Should FDA Change its Rules?
The FDA is concerned that long lists of potential problems, including death, might confuse people and discourage them from taking advertised medicines. As a result, the agency is considering limiting the risks presented in direct-to-consumer drug ads on television and in print.
This is a significant departure from FDA’s previous policy to include important risk information in any advertising directed to the public. This reversal has some consumer advocates concerned.
Although leaders of the pharmaceutical industry have not been witnessed doing victory dances in the end zone, we suspect that they are privately pleased. Marketing experts hate to tell people about the dangers of their products.
Abilify Adverse Effects
We can just imagine an advertising director gritting his teeth as he hammered out the following television voice-over for the depression drug Abilify:
“Abilify is not for everyone. Call your doctor if your depression worsens or if you have unusual changes in behavior or thoughts of suicide…
“Elderly dementia patients taking Abilify have an increased risk of death or stroke.
“Call your doctor if you have high fever, stiff muscles and confusion to address a possible life threatening condition or if you have uncontrollable muscle movements as these can become permanent. High blood sugar has been reported with Abilify and medicines like it and in extreme cases can lead to coma or death…”
This is not a friendly sales message and might deter all but the most desperate patients from asking their doctor “if adding Abilify is right” for them.
We’re not sure that reducing the number of risks mentioned in drug ads will actually serve the public well. We hope the FDA doesn’t make such drugs seem safer than they really are. In our opinion, the best solution of all would be to eliminate direct-to-consumer advertising completely.
We would love to see your thoughts about drug ads on television (and in print). Do you find them helpful or an annoyance? Would you like to see the FDA reduce the number of scary side effects mentioned in such drug ads? Would you like to see prescription drugs ads eliminated from television altogether? Share your perspective below in the “Add My Thoughts” section. And please vote on this article at the top of this page.
Dean
Lewis, Colorado
Oh my . . . like people are awake when they are hit with these ads?
The listeners will fall into 3 (or perhaps 4) groups . . .:
1. They understand the ad and actually understand the list of side effects that they can compare with the malady they are currently dealing with, and can make a sentient decision if the drug is something they should check into.
2. Another portion (larger than we want to believe) of the audience will be on a self destruction path and will relish the thought of having their insurance company or the government pay for a drug that will cause them irreparable harm.
3. Another group (and I believe to be perhaps larger than the other two groups) mis-hear the ad. They confuse all those horrific side effects as the maladies that the drug is supposed to treat, so they recognize the sympoms as something they either already have or something they are deathly afraid of getting, and look at this drug as the solution to their problem which of course was never the intent.
Does the drug company care? Of course not. The only concern they have is: do the ads bring in more profitable business?
sabretruthtiger
Canada
No way the evil FDA which is completely owned by Big Pharma and is completely corrupt should NOT relax the rules.
It provides a list of concerns that potential patients can bring up with their Doctor whereas otherwise they’re relying on the doctor who may be only interested in commissions from big pharma to tell them.
Paul
I will make a rather long story short. Some 20 years ago, I visited a doctor. While I was setting in the waiting room, two young women in business suits walked in, greeting the nurses behind the counter, speaking as regular clientele, began to promote a regimen of the latest prescription drugs, saying their company wanted them to try them out on their patients.
I didn’t give it much thought, until I was seen by the doctor for a simple ear ache. This is where the story could get rather long, my giving reasons for my having high blood pressure that day. Needless to say, they, the nurse and the doctor, focused on the high blood pressure. The doctor wanted to “try a regimen” of new pills on me. I responded to this by saying, “The Side effects are?”
The doctor didn’t like that, and began to demean my coming to a doctor with a “simple” ear ache, when I, to her opinion, had a serious problem with my blood pressure. Well she took an EKG and was shocked that it was normal. I responded to this, “Well maybe you should leave it alone,…I just came here for an ear ache.” You know how that went over with her.
She wrote out the prescription anyway, saying to me, “I know people like you, you don’t come to doctors for serious matters, just simple ones.” With that I took the prescription, to avoid any further argument, knowing what I would do with it once I left her office. Here is the ending of this story; as I was walking out she said, “You can have the prescription filled “ACROSS THE HALL WAY”.
How convenient. It makes you wonder if Big Pharmaceutical Companies and Doctors are in this just for the money. I am not their Gini pig. Either they know me well enough to know my system’s reaction to a pill or they don’t…THEY AREN’T gods!
Ginger
Hillsborough, N. C.
In reference to the FDA possibly cutting back on the disclosure of pharmaceutical side effects in order for the drug companies to better sell their products is very telling. No company would want these disclosures unless required to do so.
What is happening to accountability in this country? A question for the FDA. Is this change in the law for the profit of pharmaceutical companies or for the welfare of the American people, who, for those who actually do pay, already pay more for their prescriptive medicines than the same prescriptive medicines in other countries? Another question for the FDA. Are the American people helping to fund these costly advertisements with that discrepancy?
There is documented proof that the United States has an epidemic use and abuse of prescription drugs. It seems logical not to further entice or contribute to this telling issue and statistic.Would that the FDA take note of that and stop this advertising altogether like most other progressive countries… only the U.S. and New Zealand have that granted permission. Pharmaceutical companies, however, are known to have the most lobbyists in the US Congress. Why should drug companies be able to advertise a product which can not be freely purchased by the public unless they have permission, a prescription from a doctor. Many doctors know why a drug is used, thanks mostly to the pharmaceutical sales representatives, but not always updated on its side effects or interactions which is what a pharmacist is trained to know.
Doctor, pharmacist and patient should work as a team providing patient healthcare, not a pharmaceutical (or insurance) company with the ulterior motive of profit. While their work is greatly appreciated and definitely needed, this proposal is still a conflict of interest. I know of no one who listens intently to these drug ads on TV or especially reads the sometimes two-page coverage in magazines. Think about this… children used to sing the jingles of products from commercials. Can you imagine what they think now?!
Jane
New York
I believe that advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals should be banned. The trickle-down effect of the cost of advertising to the consumer is enormous, and there is no catch-all for prescribing pharmaceutical drugs en mass. Physicians are the only legitimate source for determining what drug is best suited for a patient whether related to symptoms presented or past medical history.
Ann
Big pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on R&D. The inclusion of litanies of side effects in the ads hasn’t deterred enough customers to stop the drugs from becoming billion-dollar sellers to millions of Americans.
Sally
Texas
Choices always result in consequences, and we deserve full disclosure of medicine risks. I have had experience that some of the drugs being advertised are not what they appear. Let the buyer beware, however, because pharmaceutical companies have committed a great deal of crime in the past with their previous lack of disclosure in many areas, especially in their published trials.
It is becoming more apparent than ever that the FDA really is a lap dog of the very profitable pharmaceutical business instead of our watch dog to protect consumers. Isn’t it strange that only two countries in the world (the U.S. and New Zealand) legalize direct to consumer (DTC) ads? Now these companies will gain more power and money than ever before with the further gift of not having to provide a full disclosure of risks.
These ads have turned consumers into very persuasive sales reps for the drug companies when these people become patients in asking their doctors for whatever they saw on TV. It is also not surprising that some companies sponsor popular news sources, such as Merck that sponsors CNN, for even further propaganda.
When DTC ads were first approved, the FDA said they could only be run with lengthy consumer warnings of risks and side effects, but now they are proposing that less information is needed. This certainly doesn’t serve the consumer but it surely will boost the sales and profits of pharmaceutical companies.
According to naturalnews.com and OpenSecrets.org,… “The drug industry spends more money than any other industry on government lobbying to ensure that the public is constantly bombarded with advertising and other propaganda promoting drugs. This undue influence has also paved the way for pharmaceuticals and vaccines to become the primary form of “medicine” dispensed to Americans.”
This is all very frightening to me since, according to Dr. Mercola, “On average, if you take one prescription drug you’ll be exposed to 70 potential side effects. Some of the more commonly prescribed drugs average around 100 side effects each — and some drugs even carry over 500!” But let me decide the risks I am willing to take.
Sarah
Charleston, SC
I wish they had never started advertising drugs on TV. But if they do, then I feel the side effects must be stated. My first thought is: “I never want to take that drug”!
Jerie
Lynchburg, VA
I find the drug ads on TV real bothersome. I usually walk out of the commercial and do something else. It’s interesting that when the side effects are given they are overshadowed by people in wonderful places, doing wonderful things, having fun. A distraction, for sure, to all the side effects. I would like to see drug commercials changed to a different format. I wouldn’t banned them outright as they do advertise what is available. Drug commercials are just like the nightly news…..all entertainment. Right now, the power of suggestion is so great here that it makes people run right out and want to try it.
Christopher Wunsch
United States
As someone who has been disabled since 2002, due to the many UNPUBLISHED effects of Statin drugs, and a former Critical Care RN, this BLOWS MY MIND! I think the FDA should be replaced by somebody who is Not receiving bribes, who has the best interest of the WE THE PEOPLE, and not a slave to the big $$ coming their way. As an RN, I was “educated” as to the benefits and risks of many drugs, from College, to the many drug conferences I attended, that were put on by the Pharma sales reps, who are paid to SELL drugs…boast minuscule benefits, and minimize the plethora of adverse events. It is sickening! How does this help the citizens of trust their health care providers to do what is best? It doesn’t!
Nancy
Massachusetts
The public should be informed about these side effects. Hiding them doesn’t help anyone but the drug companies.
As to weather or not they should advertise, the ads are annoying. But they do help people to know what’s what, as long as they have to include side effects.
Janice H.
North Carolina
Direct marketing of prescription drugs should never have been allowed. It puts too much pressure on a physician to prescribe a certain medication when a patient asks for it even though it may not be indicated in the physician diagnosis. Also many ads are annoying and sometimes inappropriate when children and grandchildren are present. At this point, though, it would probably be difficult to retract this freedom from the drug companies. In spite of this, I hope some changes will be made to reduce the number and kind of drug ads that occur on television.
AO
Illinois
I think that any publication of information regarding a prescription or over the counter drug should be required to include a complete listing of ALL negative side effects regardless of their severity. TV advertising with inclusion of all side effect is very desirable, so that consumers are knowledgable about the dangers involved when their doctor suggests a particular drug. Money talks, and doctors don’t have a lot of time to remember all their conversations, and read all the literature dumped on them by drug company representatives peddling their various products. Only through advertising does the consumer have some knowledge about the various drugs so they can question a doctor’s recommendations, if they consider it dangerous. There are so many drugs on the market that you can’t remember them all, but questioning the use of those with the most dangerous side effects may save your life.
I do not trust the FDA to make decisions based on what is best for the consumer. Again, money talks, and politicians are easily influenced to pressure agencies in response to lobbyist’s efforts to push actions that increase their profits, and campaign contributions. Since the politicians control the budget strings, who is looking out for the consumer. This proposed change in advertising standards smells of both industry and political influence.
bk
michigan
FDA is not helping the public by giving in to the pharmaceutical companies. They never should have allowed advertising of drugs in the first place. Get rid of them!
ECM
Raleigh
I really want direct-to-consumer ads (television, print and direct mail) ended.
Since I doubt that will happen any time soon, I certainly disagree with the idea that side effects should be omitted or downplayed. Without that type of information consumers can’t even begin to think about the benefit/risk ratio they should consider in selecting a therapy.
In all honesty I don’t pay attention to any of the pharma ads. The drug companies have no place in my conversations with my doc as to how to effectively treat me.
Margie
Florida
I would like to see drug ads banned from TV altogether. They are ridiculous and annoying. It should be the doctor’s responsibility to inform patients of all side effects of a particular drug. If the ads are going to remain on television, then all the warnings should continue to be included.
Mary
San Antonio, TX
I’ve long believed that TV and print advertising of pharmaceuticals should be banned. First reason is the cost. Advertising must add a huge amount to the cost of the drugs. The commercials are 1.5 to 2 minutes long, and the print ads take up to three or four pages! And who wants to or is able to read all that small print? I often find myself hearing the side effects of a drug in a TV commercial and think, “no thanks, I’ll just keep the disease.” Second reason is that not enough thought goes into the process, either by the patient or the doctor. Some patients are easily influenced by TV, and some doctors will take a suggestion from a patient as an easy solution. Get rid of the ads!
Sabrina
San Diego
Excellent article. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I would wager the Pharma lobby is behind this, what I consider a, criminal act, false advertising. Big pharma spends more money on advertising than on R & D. Do not be fooled into believing you are a patient to them, you are a CONSUMER. They spend $20 BILLION a year to get consumers to buy and doctors/hospitals to prescribe their drugs. http://ethicalnag.org/2010/02/10/20-billion-marketing/
The two biggest Pharma lobbies are http://www.phrma.org/ and https://www.bio.org/
” Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C.”
Starts to sound like a drug cartel doesn’t? And the FDA is right in the middle of it giving it credibility. Anything the FDA does should be suspect.
Melody
Norman, OK
The drug companies absolutely should continue to list possible side affects and adverse reactions. This is a safety issue, and could mean death or permanently compromised health for people who take the drugs advertised. The more that the patient, the patient’s family, and the doctor know of possible adverse effects, the better health outcomes people are likely to see when they do choose to use a drug–because they know what to watch for, and can make appropriate adjustments in treatment when necessary.
PATRICIA
DALLAS TX
I also think the advertising should be banned altogether, but if it continues then warnings should remain.
TV advertising is expensive. It has been reported that big pharm spends more on marketing than it does on research, yet it claims that the reason for high prices of drugs are due to expensive research and development.
It follows that discontinuance of marketing cost may reduce the cost of drugs- especially used by medicare and elderly. It might provide some financial relief?
Darby
Dare County, NC
Lobbyists are paid a great deal to influence how our government works to protect the public. A successful effort to suppress awareness of truly life-threatening side effects of many drugs should frighten us all. Some people (including me) have terrible responses to what I refer to as the identity theft drugs like epilepsy prescriptions used off label. When my autonomic nervous system got hit and I had to think to take each breath, I knew I was in big trouble. I want to know about each and every possible side effect. Google has been helpful in this regard.
Tom
Redmond, WA
Drug advertising in ANY form should be banned. Period. However, if it is allowed, the warnings should be required to be accompanied by pictures showing people suffering the adverse effects that are mentioned. Now, they show “happy” people throughout, even as the adverse effects are listed.
Valerie
WA State
OK, the ads aren’t going away – pharmaceutical companies have too many ways to prevent that. So let’s make them meaningful. If I know I have an 80% chance that the drug will do me GOOD, that helps me make a decision. If I know that there’s also a 20% chance of XYZ adverse event occurring, that also helps me make a decision. Let’s not believe that the prescribing doc or other provider is going to be that thorough. He or she may now know, and certainly won’t have the time to go through this. And I thought direct marketing to docs was outlawed years ago?
Elliot
Florida
Your suggestion of eliminating direct-to-consumer advertising completely is really the best way to go. I remember when it was not allowed; it has been a big bonus to the advertising industry. People today can easily search for information about a drug recommended by their Doctor on the Internet; that option was not available when DTC advertising started. If DTC advertising is not banned, then there certainly should NOT be a reduction of the number of risks mentioned in drug ads.
Grace
Texas
Definitely advertise drugs on TV and the more side effects the better. Consumers need to know what is being prescribed for them and often the docs don’t have time to explain or condense it into a sound bite. Especially seniors need this info. So many seniors are walking around in a drug induced fog and have drug induced conditions that they don’t even know about. I am also convinced that the drug companies “rare” side effects are more prevalent than reported. I always do the research and look at how the study was conducted and what methodology was used. Not all consumers can do this and that is why I am so grateful that you two exist to get this info out. Keep up the good work.
frenagd
az
Of course consumers should be told about side effects. Otherwise, they die of them. This is especially true of elders. Too many doctors are unfamiliar with side effects and therefore do not take them into account when innocently prescribing, especially a new drug. Personally I would like to see a massive FBI investigation into the FDA links with drug company benefits, from trips, to payment to cushy drug company jobs after leaving the FDA.
Bobbie
Washington
There should never be prescription drugs ads on TV. If they do continue on TV, all positive & negative effects must be presented. The FDA does not protect us. We must be given enough info to make decisions about drugs. NO DRUGS
ADS ON TV is my preference.
James Daugherty
Bradenton, FL
We are all subjected to noisy drug advertising, even though we just can’t go out and buy these poisons over the counter. So some of us, at least, do go out and “ask your doctor.” And he usually writes a prescription. I am horrified when I see all these ads offering me a variety of ways to do away with myself. (I thought guns and sleeping pills were the means of choice.) But these drug pushers are doing us a favor by telling us the whole truth about their poison pills, aren’t they? These poison-peddlers should have their ads banned entirely. In the meantime, they should be forced to continue their ads for their deadly products, including any and all information about dangerous side-effects.
Lise
United States
People have the right to be informed of drug side effects!
AC
NC
The numerous negative side effects listed with the TV ads are not so much to be informative but rather to serve as CYAs for Big Pharma in case someone suffers one of those side effects and tries to sue.
Then the advertiser can escape the suit by saying, “Oh, no. You were warned in our TV ad and you chose to take the drug anyway. We aren’t at fault.”
TF
United States
Perhaps these drug advertisements are the only way that viewers actually become aware that there really are adverse side effects that are associated with any advertised drug. In this case, the advertisement becomes a public service. Through random conversations, I have found that “rare” side effects seem to be anything but rare. It seems that the population is encouraged to gamble with its health. If one carefully listens to the ad and uses some critical thinking and engages in personal research, one can make an informed decision.
Patty B
Oregon
If prescription medicines are advertised, they should include every last possible side effect. It would be better if they weren’t advertised at all. Fortunately, I don’t have any of the problems that the prescriptions are meant for. Even if I did, I wouldn’t want to take any of those prescriptions.
Kimberly
Oregon
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Marketing to Doctors. (2015, February, HBO). Retrieved from http://youtu.be/YQZ2UeOTO3I
This is funny but no joke or a matter for laughter. I do not believe pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to advertise on television at all. Unfortunately, if you follow the money it’s unstoppable.
Furthermore, I do not believe doctors are innocent in this situation. A healthcare provider has three potential diagnoses in mind prior to even meeting a patient. They interrupt a patient within six seconds of talking. Off Label Use is rampid and commonly involves prescribing drugs to children that are not approved for those under 18 years old.
Additionally, the FDA has 4 inspectors in India and 2 in China; the largest suppliers of generic drugs and of pharmaceutical ingredients, respectively. If a pharmaceutical company is found guilty of fraudulent claims they can no longer do business with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), the largest drug purchaser in the world. Big Pharma gets around this by using shell companies that take the hit when they are found guilty of fraud and ordered to pay fines.
To escaped poverty, I joined the Army as a teen. Trained as a military journalist, I followed all AP requirements and government propaganda mandates. The average American reads at the 8th grade level; there is no way that they can understand the complexities of the healthcare system, let alone dangers pharmaceutical ads.
If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough it becomes truth. If you challenge a healthcare provider and question their understanding of an FDA added Black Box Warnings you tend to be fired. I have seen the most egregious lies pass physicians lips and been fired by the best.
I have a former friend who majored in marketing and has worked for GlaxoSmithKline for over 25 years. She is so brainwashed with a marketing training; she actually believes polypharmacy can cure the world. In closing, nobody remembers retractions!
P.S. Do any of you dedicated Peoples Pharmacy readers remember the Is Your Doctor Lying to You audio interview?
Respectfully,
Registered Nurse, Software Engineer, Journalist, and Healthcare and HIT Consultant
Mary B.
United States
Good conversation! I add my two cents.
1. Drug ads have no place in the media. Watching people frolicking about while a friendly, cheerful voice is telling you in the most matter-of-fact way that side effects such as strokes, heart attacks, and DEATH have occurred as a result of taking this medicine makes me angry, and it scares me that many people conditioned to staring at the tube all day just see the name of the drug and the “fun” associated with it. Advertising at its best.
2. To eliminate the warnings would be criminal, in my opinion. Next, they will take them out of the pamphlets that come with the drugs, written in such small print there that you need a magnifying glass to read them.
3. Many of these ads tell you that you may be able to get the drug for free. Who are they kidding? WE pay for that “generosity’ in higher prices. While they are telling this, why not just tell how much a month’s supply of this little miracle costs for everyone else? It’s real come-on, and not a very ethical one, to my way of thinking. The people who can get it for free are the very people who have the least access to good medical care, and they are probably the ones who would be the least alert to seeking care for side effects.
4. The FDA really dropped the ball when it allowed drug companies to perform their own testing. Why do we need an FDA, then? They don’t police drugs, and they don’t seem to keep the food supply safe, so what’s the point? We might as well eliminate the whole thing and put that money into paying for all the medical care that is needed from the drug side effects and the widespread salmonella, listeria, etc. outbreaks that occur because no one is watching the henhouse!
Sabrina
San Diego
Well said, Mary
Gary
Arizona
First of all, I trust my doctor to know and understand any condition I have that needs some kind of treatment by him/her or a specialist. I also feel strongly that we as patients of those doctors need to be involved and ultimately make the final decision on any medications, prescription or not. A TV ad suggests that our doctors are not doing their jobs and are essentially wanting us to be the doctor. Not a good idea! I have on one or two occasions asked my doctor about an advertised drug but never used them as the doctor said it wasn’t appropriate for the condition I had. I wasn’t going to press the issue just because of the advertising.
Allowing the advertising but not telling us about the side effects is bordering on false advertising. If they are allowed to advertise openly and tell about all the “wonderful” things their drugs can do for us then they have the moral obligation to tell all the unpleasant ones. Leaving it up to us to read the printed information given to us at the pharmacy simply is not adequate. We have all seen the multi-page print ads where more space is devoted to the “fine print” that no one other than a doctor or scientist can even begin to understand. Same with the little folded paper that often comes inside a box that contains our prescriptions. That technically fulfills a legal obligation but is morally lacking. I will also be the first to agree that most of the really bad side effects are probably pretty rare but still should be openly stated.
So, my feeling is that prescription drugs should not be allowed to advertise on TV or any media. Period. I Personally, I would not consume any drug, prescription or non-prescription, without talking to a doctor about it.
Kathy
WA
Drug Ads shouldn’t be allowed on T V, we are the only Country in the World that allows such a thing! At the least all possible side affects should be listed in print and with the TV Ad. Allowing the Ads is a testament to how the pharmaceutical companies have too much control over us and our government!
Donna
Texas
Drugs should not be advertised on television or in the print media. This is not done for the benefit of the consumers and is only aimed at increasing the profits of drug companies. I am always amazed by the line in so many of them that starts “Tell your doctor if you have ….” and then continues with a list of things your doctor should know or be telling you!
Roz
Hudson Florida
We should not advertise prescription medications on TV, Cable, and print media. Doctors should be having discussions about what is best for their patients. As consumers we can research medications for our ailments on the internet without being bombarded to ads. As long as advertising is legal side effect must be continued to be disclosed. Additionally, the billions spent on advertising is passed on the consumer in higher priced medications.
Barbara H
Houston TX
I do not think drug side effects should be hidden from the public. They are very real! I also believe drug adds should not be on TV. They are very annoying, and many people will ask their Dr. to prescribe them, when they are not a good choice for them, or unnecessary for them.
Janice B
New Mexico
Dorothy in Whispering Pines expressed my opinion quite well. I agree with her view that prescription meds should not be advertised anywhere. They should be chosen by physicians for their patients, as appropriate to patient cases and situations the doctors know and understand. I’ve read that some patients insist on a drug over the better instincts of their doctors, not a good thing. The only ones who benefit from the advertising of these drugs are (surprise!) the pharmaceutical companies. At the very least, the harmful side effects should be included in the ads (if we have to have ads at all).
Moira
Florida
Of course advertising of drugs to the general public should not happen. This is the only country in the world that allows this. Add to this the million of dollars in fines levied on pharmaceutical companies for misrepresentation and misinformation to doctors regarding their products only to have more fines levied several years later. Obviously fining the industry does not work; they should jail the executives in charge if found guilty. So we can’t ‘ask your doctor’ because they may not have the correct information.
We are always looking for the new wonder drug like penicillin but that’s not likely to happen. I think a major concern for all new drugs is that the patient has to be considered a guinea pig and should realize this. Since many of these drugs are, unlike antibiotics, for long term use the patient needs to be aware of any and all possible side effects. I would recommend that rather than ask your doctor you ask your pharmacist!
On a final note I am concerned that the FDA has crossed the line from protecting the public to protecting the pharmaceutical industry.
Jan
Arizona
Prescription drugs should be something your physician says “is right for you” not the other way around! If the ads touting benefits of drugs are going to continue then it’s the public’s right to know the benefits & detriments. Knowledge is power!
Dot
San Diego
I don’t think drug companies should advertise at all, but as long as they do, they absolutely should list the side effects front and center. All drugs have side effects and they affect people in different ways. It’s just a bid on the part of big pharma for “customers” to pressure their docs into prescribing drugs that may or may not work, and could even kill them.
Sandy
Newport News, VA
I agree with the other comments I read. I am disgusted with the drug ads…..especially “tell you Dr. if you have…..” or “ask your Dr if ………….. is right for you” or “don’t take if you are allergic to (the drug). I think your doctor, not a drug company trying to pump up sales should advise you on medication and that ALL possible side effects should always be spelled out. I certainly agree that drugs should not be advertised. The effect of all this advertising on me is that I am reluctant to take any pharmaceutical.
Judith
Ohio
All drugs have side effects and in order to make an intelligent decision on whether or not to risk these side effects to obtain, hopefully, a drug’s benefits one has to know what side effects there might be. With that, I definitely think that if the drug industry is going to continue advertising their products on television, they also need to continue sharing the fact that there can be significant side effects from the use of their products.
Dee
This insane idea is more proof that FDA is more interested in protecting Big Pharma than protecting patients. But since they receive a large chunk of funding from drug, cosmetics & agriculture corporations (with full knowledge of those useless morons in Congress), we should not be surprised that FDA is siding with the poison makers.
Mary
North Carolina
Pharmaceutical ads should be removed from TV. However, as long as they continue, they must continue to mention potential side effects. All drugs have harmful side effects, even aspirin. But many also provide relief for various illnesses and pain that make people’s lives better. Doctors are supposed to weigh the benefit versus the risks. That’s their responsibility. People should also educate themselves the best they can about potential side effects. That’s why they’re listed in the papers the pharmacy provides with a prescription. It’s a partnership. Drug companies should get no free ride. By having to state side effects on TV commercials, perhaps listeners might think twice if a drug is really beneficial. I agree with Margaret, Viagra and vaginal cream ads are inappropriate for TV. They pop up unexpectedly on shows children may be watching with their parents. If people have problems, doctors always were and should always be the people we turn to for issues.
Ellen
Upstate NY
I loathe TV ads for prescription medications and think they should be banned. Personally, I have a 7-year policy re. medications: they have to be in general use for at least seven years before I will agree to take them. The only exception would be a newer drug for a condition that has no tried-and-true treatment available. Very rarely are the “old” prescription meds advertised on TV. As long as prescription drugs continue to be advertised on TV, keep side effects information complete – no pussyfooting.
Mae
United States
The drug company’s are in business to make money, not to protect or help us and the FDA is not monitoring them they way that they should. The TV advertising is bad and I am tired of hearing one pharmacy ad after another. Most of these new products have serious side effects but all are urged to take them or “ask your Dr.” who is also bombarded by the drug companies. The Doctors don’t even have time enough to listen or talk to a patient and it’s easier to just prescribe a drug and shoo the patient out the door. The drug reps also take up precious office hours time talking to the Doctors and getting them to buy their products. Now, with the narrowing of the number of generic drug companies, the supposed benefit of generics, which is being cheaper and “the same as” the original drugs, is not there. The generics are getting much, much more expensive and are still not the same as the original. I vote “NO” to TV prescription drug advertising and especially to downplaying the risks.
Susan
Texas
Stop all ads on tv.
True story..patient in room, doctor walks in, barely greeting patient he knows, in small town: with rx pad poised asks, “seen any tv ads you want me to prescribe?”
P.
New Jerey
I believe that drug companies should provide side effects in their advertising. If they don’t, how would the consumer know if it should be taken. Many ads list interactions with other meds. I think this is important for the consumer to make the best choice in choosing the right medication. Of course, this should also be discussed with your doctor for you own safety.
Patrick
Houston, TX
I think the FDA, should ban ALL drug advertising on TV, like ads for smoking.
Then take the money saved and reduce the price consumers pay for medication
Debbie
Virginia
I think that prescription drug commercials should be banned from television. If that is not to be the case, then at least continue with a summary of the adverse side effects. Lets be real, the effects stated in the commercials are just a SUMMARY, but are very important. In the magazine ads, the drug companies have to purchase at least two entire pages of ad space, and often three or more pages just to get all the “fine print” included. So at the very least, the drug companies should continue to purchase ad time and state the summary of nasty side effects. Otherwise, they would probably just fill those extra few seconds of air time with ridiculous stuff like people sitting in bath tubs on top of a mountain.
Also, I think the FDA should stop acting like American consumers are ignorant. Or perhaps that is their way of trying to make us think they are on our side, looking after us. Judging from past actions, I think we have seen how that can turn out.
erv
United States
why advertise. leave it up to your doctor for prescription drugs.
Holly
California
As long as Prescriptions continue to be advertised on TV the WARNINGS MUST CONTINUE. Doctors DO NOT WARN OR INFORM PATIENTS WHEN PRESCRIPTIONS ARE INITIALLY PRESCRIBED. Even after “Ask your Doctor” I have received Doctor comments such as “There is no harm,” “Don’t worry.” Few Doctors seem to know or admit possibilities of RX adverse effects. The TV Prescription Warnings must remain on TV RX Advertising. Otherwise Patients have NO KNOWLEDGE OF HARM /ADVERSE EFFECTS MANY RX cause. This from a patient who would be otherwise healthy if Doctors had FOREWARNED of possibility of Adverse Effects. I had informed in writing each Doctor & Pharmacy at beginning of being their patient that I had a propensity toward RX Adverse Effects & “Sensitivities.” I Was Never Forewarned. Now suffer CHRONIC PAIN from Tendon, Nerve damage & Muscle Pain, Digestive distress & Neuro problems. After having been very physically active for many years, I have lived the past 10 years in Chronic Pain so debilitating that I am primarily housebound & unable to engage in most activities of daily life. Pain RXs cause me additional distressing side effects. (Still don’t know the long lasting effects of RX Gabapentin prescribed for Nerve pain upon my Pancreas, Liver, etc)
TV RX Warnings are absolutely necessary. They Alert & Inform the Public about RX Adverse Effects/Harm that Doctors have failed to inform their Patients.
Pamela
NC
Strange you should call for votes, and then offer no opportunity for doing so. I find this not only frustrating, but insulting.
I totally agree with the above comments. All pharmaceutical ads should be banned from TV. I understand total profits of the 10 Fortune 500 drug companies were more than the profits of the other 490 businesses COMBINED! See, wanttoknow.info for more…
The People's Pharmacy
Sorry for the confusion, Pamela! You can “vote” on this article by clicking on one of the stars at the top of the article. If you like it, give us 5 stars (click on the star on the far right). If you don’t like this article, click on a different star based on how useful you think the information is.
Jim
Raleigh
All forms of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising should be banned! The fact that the USA is one of only two countries in the world that allows this advertising is a clear warning that we are doing something wrong and against the public interest.
Dorothy
Florida
I don’t think drugs should be advertised, but since they are they must include side effects. People ask their doctors for certain drugs, thinking they are answers to their problems, and most times are not warned of side effects. I’ve encountered times where my doctor wasn’t aware of some side effects.
Jackie
Georgia
I know I will never take any of those drugs if at all possible. Alternative is my way. I bet your doctors don’t take those drugs. Ask them, see if they stumble on that question. For me, I’m glad to see the advertisements so I know to avoid them.
Joan
Baltimore
One significant factor your article doesn’t mention is the role that pressure from pharmaceutical salespeople plays in influencing which medications doctors choose to prescribe. I feel that including warnings in TV and print ads is the only protection that consumers have left! I think it would be a gross disservice to citizens for the FDA to permit advertising without the warnings. Further, I think advertising is a mixed bag, but at least with the warnings, consumers know what questions to ask regarding side effects.
Carol
North Carolina
We need to know the dangers before we have to fill the first perscription and then read the insert which is always in tiny hard to read print. Ads alert us to problems in our family which develop after taking a new drug. Allowing the drug companies to make them look like the newest miracle without the warnings would be false advertising in my opinion.
David
North carolia
Drug advertising should be banned from TV. Let the doctors handle who should have the drugs and let them tell the patients about the adverse as well as the good effects. Some patients hear about the drug on TV and then demand the doctor prescribe it not realizing it may not be the best for them. This puts the doctor in an awkward position.
Nancy
Georgia
If drug companies stopped advertising drugs then maybe the cost of drugs would be lower and also more people would want to take them. People cannot buy these over the counter and still have to get a doctor to prescribe them. At that time, the side effects could be stated by the doctor or pharmacist.
Dorothy
Whispering Pines, NC
I believe that the ads for drugs should continue to state the dangers that could occur. Personally, I do not think they should advertise on the TV at all. Too many people try them even with the warnings and many have adverse effects.
Roseanne
Florida
My opinion is that drug companies should not market directly to consumers. I am old enough to remember when there was no direct marketing of prescription drugs, doctors, or hospitals. They were considered professionals and patients were patients, not consumers.
The advertised individuals, institutions, or drugs were considered quackery and avoided by intelligent people. We trusted and respected our doctors, pharmacists and hospitals. I worked in a pharmacy before becoming a RN and the customers would usually ask the pharmacist’s advice even before buying over the counter medicine. I remember the first time I looked through a PDR and thought, “there must be a magical pill for everything.” Nothing could be further from the truth, but the drug manufacturers continue to propagate that myth.
Brooke
Duluth Mn
I agree with all of the above. First of all there should be no advertising of any drugs on television. But , since there is, the side effects should be noted very clearly and there should be no urging people to “ask ” their doctors if any given drug is right for them. There is way too much dependency on drugs in this country. I have suffered mightily from side effects of several drugs over the years. I would never take a drug I hadn’t researched well.
I also feel the FDA is working more for big Pharma, not the American people. .
Doryne
Windsor, Ct.
I also agree with all of the above statements. And I don’t believe we can fully trust the FDA to make the appropriate decisions on how to handle the drug ads. They make mistakes, too, all the time.
We need to be proactive in deciding whether or not to take a specific drug because doctors don’t always believe the side effects we have. They tend to listen more to the pharmacy reps but less to patients. I have adverse side effects to so many meds that I carry a list to give to new doctors.
But I also want to give “kudos” to those doctors out there that do listen & understand patients when they are told about serious side affects they’ve experienced. There have been big changes to doctor’s attitudes in the last fifty years.
paula
roswell ga
Advertising drugs without mentioning side effects should be illegal. Furthermore, drug reps that interface with doctors have the same agenda as the TV ads – to sell more and make more money. In my 75 years I have found, sadly, that many doctors are so indoctrinated by the “drug sell” that they refuse to listen to a patient’s experience with drugs.
My first choice would be to eliminate all advertising of drugs on media – TV and otherwise. Current technology with internet opens up a much needed method of education on such topics (i.e., People’s Pharmacy). Unfortunately, there are many who do not have access to internet or do not have the willingness or knowledge on how to educate themselves.
alexis jones
with possible adverse consequences frequently far outweighing questionable benefits, it’s certainly not in the public’s interest to censure side-effects. My vote: absolutely not.
Penny
Florida
I don’t think advertisements for prescription drugs belong on TV. I seldom watch anything but PBS, but when I do tune into Network TV I’m horrified that anyone would consider taking any one of the drugs advertised. Do people not pay attention to the list of possible side effects and just listen to the hope about the benefits? If it’s not possible to get the ads off the air I do believe all of the possible adverse reactions belong in the ads, and NOT listed when showing robust, healthy people smiling!
Margaret
Texas
I agree 100%. Ads for prescription drugs on TV are totally inappropriate. Adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals SHOULD ALWAYS be included in the continuous bombardment by drug companies. Comically, following pharma ads are attorney ads advising if harmed by a prescription drug, contact us…I am quite concerned with the FDA’s failure to address this issue. Enough is enough, if I see one more Viagra commercial, I will cease watching network TV. Common sense has “left the building”.
Bill
Orange, Ma.
I feel that consumers should be informed of the “full cost” of the advertised drugs. The drug companies spend multi-millions on ads, lobbyists, lawyers and direct doctor contact/sales pitches. Often, these drugs offer marginal benefits, but the ads are created in such manner that they appear miraculous. The recent new toe nail fungus drug is a good example. Not that much more effective over existing solutions, but oh so costly.
The drug companies are reasonably interested in the bottom line. I am interested in a drug’s dollar cost and effectiveness. The side effects, such as death, even if a rare occurance, should be expressed right up front, not as an after thought or fine print or whispered comment.
Alicia
Dallas
The FDA does not exist to make it easier for drug companies. They both know side effects, some fatal, are possible with many drugs. Personally, I think that advertising of prescription medications should not be ALLOWED, period. With drugs, we are PATIENTS, not consumers, and should not be encouraged to pressure their MDs into giving them drugs they don’t need. That change would help prevent many over-prescribing, wrong prescribing, and drug interaction problems we have today. Advertising is a recent phenomenon, so we know the drug companies will survive. I’ve also long thought that the adverse warning should be required to be SLOW enough that normal people can understand them. Under NO circumstances should the FDA delete these warnings. It will endanger thousands of Americans.
By the way, I can’t find a place to vote.
GL
northeast NY
the idea that drug companies would be allowed to skip the warning is frightening. Even with the warnings, people are being harmed by the relentless pressures to “ask your doctor” for this medicine and that – because of interactions and overdosing. better to ban all prescription drug advertising to the public. It is the doctors’ job to know what patients might need. It should be illegal to direct-market to doctors, and for doctors to take gifts and favors for prescribing as well.
ChrisofDan
Nc
I think they should continue to warn us of the side effects. Why is it that these companies are more and more getting away with safety for the people? Taking drugs seem to be pushed on us with too much frequency and cavalier attitudes these days when there might be other non drug approaches for us to try. Unlike years ago, there is a rush to get new drugs onto the market before thorough testing.. The drug companies complained years ago about the testing programs taking too long before getting their drugs out there, and they got what they wished for, and now drugs are at times very dangerous. So the least they can do is tell us about side effects.
Fran
Atlanta
Eliminate tv direct-to-consumer marketing entirely.
Grandma Goose
United States
My preference would be to ban all advertising for prescription drugs.
Diana
Boone, NC
The FDA is not an advocate for the general public. So of course they do not want the general public to know about the side effects of drugs because it takes money out of their pockets and the pockets of the drug companies. The FDA does themselves no favors by allowing dangerous drugs and medical devices on the market. Yes, drug companies and medical device companies should continue to be required to disclose all of their side effects to the public.
Judy
Wisconsin
Have the FDA REDUCE the number of scary side effects mentioned in drug ads??? What–are you KIDDING? They should have to slow down and say each and every one of those possible time-bombs as clearly as the rest of the sales pitch. They should have to tell how many people died on their drug, or were injured by it. Real numbers–not just “a chance of” or “rare but serious side-effects”–actual FIGURES. Like, “In the year since its release, 653 people have died as a direct result of taking this drug. Another 347 are likely to have died while taking this drug.”
“Ask your doctor if it’s right for you.” Right. Like the average person is conversant enough in the latest pharma releases to even know what questions to ask, much less side-effects and drug interactions. I worked in the industry for 30 years and I’m still blindsided by side effects of prescription meds at times.
Gregory
Oregon
It is vey important that consumers know about the side effects of all medicines and procedures. The article at People’s Pharmacy about the quad flu vaccine along with the book “Being Mortal” of how our medical systems handles aging are warnings on how using averages to make decisions can negatively impact individuals. Further I am a firm believer in implementing all strategies to boost immune systems and body functions before relying on vaccines. That being said, I believe that a Shingles And Pneumonia vaccines are a prudent choices. I know of several people who had a terrible time dealing with Shingles and I had a doctor tell me that pneumonia was the “friend” of the elderly, meaning that it ended their suffering. I suggest all read the book “Being Mortal”.
Barbara
02638
Do not take the side effects off these adds. In fact they don’t stress enough how dangerous these drugs really are. I would like to see them put down the damage they do on other parts of the body as well. Not a big fan of pharmaceuticals.