|
Author
|
Topic: CanWest Global attacks Canada's law on Drug Advertising
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502
|
posted 06 October 2008 05:02 AM
The drug advertising laws actually make no sense, especially given that most Canadians watch a ton of American television where no such restrictions exist so you're getting the messages anyways, i.e. if you live in southern Ontario, you get teh pharma ads that are being broadcast on Buffalo channels, etc.The current Canadian restrictions are rather absurd. The rule is basically that if you mention a drug by name, you're not allowed to say anything about what it actually does or what it's for. So you get bullshit like "ask you doctor if generex is right for you." Well, how would you know if it's right for you? Is it for diabetes? Cholesterol? Hypertension? Arthritis? You ahve no idea because they can't even say what condition it's meant to treat. So we also end up with stupid ads like the latest for Yasmin, an oral contraceptive where tehy jsut try to make the drug seem like a cool, trendy thing that all the cool kids are on without mentioning what it's even for. They brand it as a lifestyle product as if it were a beer or brand of clothing when it's, in fact, a serious drug.
From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RW
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12884
|
posted 07 October 2008 06:00 PM
Interesting discussion! I didn't see this discussion coming after my video here when I posted it in another topic area.Some of the reference links for my video, incidentally, can be found here:
http://robwipond.com/?p=88 Anyway, in reply in particular to Star-spangled Canadian, the reason our ad laws seem so screwy is because there's been consistent behind the scenes pressure on our gov't over many years from media and Big Pharma to keep re-writing, bending and not enforcing them. I include a link to Health Canada's own version of that convoluted history on the link I posted above. As for those U.S. ads we're seeing, technically, it's illegal for us to be seeing many of them, but our government simply has not been enforcing the law. It's commonplace for ad laws to be enforced in other areas, though, e.g. during the Superbowl, where most of the U.S. Superbowl ads are simply blocked out of Canada to protect the ability of Canadian media to sell that ad time themselves.
From: x | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502
|
posted 08 October 2008 05:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Today's it's drug company salesmen who are in doctors' offices and coercing them to prescribe expensive brand name drugs.
[ 07 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Well, you're not wrong but i don't think "coerce" is a fair description at all. I'm a physician and certainly do get representatives of pharma companies coming in quite frequently to pitch me their products but I actually find it very helpful to be educated about new drugs taht are being developed. These reps are also very helpful because they give me product samples that I can give to patients who are uninsured and may not be otherwise able to afford these drugs. I think pharma companies get a bad rap from too many progressive people. yes, drugs are expensive. That's because they're incredibly expensive to develop and take many years before tehy hit the market and companies need to make that cost back, a good chunk of which will be rolled over into more R&D. And, yes, certain drugs are over-prescribed, particularly to kids. But, overall, I think the pharma industry has been by far one of the largest forces in society today. Just thinka bout it: 20 years ago, if someone was diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, that was a very quick death sentence. It was time to start planning their funerals, essentially. Today, thanks to pharmacalogical breakthroughs, HIV has become a manageable condition and people can live essentially normal lives for decades and not show any symptoms and the situation is getting better literally every day.
From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
G. Pie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15576
|
posted 08 October 2008 05:26 AM
SSC, it's been shown that physicians are influenced by even minor incentives like post-it notes and pens. If you're untainted by the sales reps, you're in the minority. Good for you.And Big Pharma doesn't roll that money over into R&D. Advertising and promotion eat up a huge chunk of their budget. I'm just now reading "Pharmacracy" by Thomas Szasz and it's an eye-opener. Most drugs are simply lifestyle-mitigators. And don't even get me started on psych meds. See what trouble Eli Lilly is getting into from off-label marketing and suppressing negative research results. The public is slowly being convinced that being on prescription drugs is the natural state of things. There aren't that many of us that avoid them altogether. And to think of the hysteria our government promotes over marijuana! This artificial divide between ethical/unethical drugs is a joke.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502
|
posted 08 October 2008 08:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by G. Pie:
SSC, it's been shown that physicians are influenced by even minor incentives like post-it notes and pens. If you're untainted by the sales reps, you're in the minority. Good for you.And Big Pharma doesn't roll that money over into R&D. Advertising and promotion eat up a huge chunk of their budget. I'm just now reading "Pharmacracy" by Thomas Szasz and it's an eye-opener. Most drugs are simply lifestyle-mitigators. And don't even get me started on psych meds. See what trouble Eli Lilly is getting into from off-label marketing and suppressing negative research results. The public is slowly being convinced that being on prescription drugs is the natural state of things. There aren't that many of us that avoid them altogether. And to think of the hysteria our government promotes over marijuana! This artificial divide between ethical/unethical drugs is a joke.
Well, I'm not sure pens and post-it notes ahve much impact beyond keeping a brand top of mind. But they certainly do go out of their way to try to win doctors over, especially the young ones. Hell, when I was in med school, drug companies used to hold "info sessions" for students that would invariably take place in expensive restaurants and feature terrific food and wine and we would leave with a nice gift bag full of not only pens and post-its but nice leather portfolios, etc. That said, I don't think there's a physician around who would ever mis-prescribe because he got a meal or a gift from a drug rep. If there are two identical drugs, yes, it may influence which BRAND you give but never the class. And if you choose one perfectly good drug over another perfectly good drug, then so what? Obviously, lots of drug company revenues goes towards promotion but they also spend more (as a percentage of revenue) on R&D than any other industry. And i don't know what you mean by "most" drugs being "lifestyle mitigators". Yes, drugs are far more frequently prescribed than they sued to be but this is simply because WE have more than we ever did. It's a state of cosntant advancement. I mean, hell, insulin is prescribed heavily. So there are more people on drugs. But before it's creation, if you were diabetic and your pancreas couldn't produce insulin on its own, you died. Simple as that. If drugs are helping people, I don't see why it's a negative that more people are on them. It's like complaining that there are more houses than there used to be.
From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RW
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12884
|
posted 08 October 2008 01:39 PM
Star Spangled Canadian, I must respond to some of your statements. Firstly, have you actually looked at any of the peer-reviewed research into how drug company 'gifts' of the type you describe actually affect physician prescribing patterns? Everything I've seen is pretty unequivocal -- doctors are influenced, they're influenced heavily, and they are even frequently influenced into medically inappropriate prescribing. It makes sense, too -- do we think drug companies are merely stupid as they put more money into marketing than into research in their efforts to influence doctors prescribing habits? Secondly, now I certainly don't know you personally, and I don't want this to sound like a personal remark. But please consider seriously what you're asking us to accept in your claims. Consider this analogy: A politician says to the public, "Yes, it's true, I take weekly visits and regular free gifts which I really appreciate from logging industry lobbyists, all of us politicians do. And we really value how these lobbyists help educate us. But trust us, we're not being influenced inappropriately by them in any way when it comes time to write new logging laws." Do we buy it? When politicians DO make such claims, most of us regard that as laughable and they can even be charged criminally with taking bribes. What makes the situation with doctors and drug companies any different? We're simply told the difference is that we can trust doctors. And we call them "gifts" and "consultant and speaker fees", not bribes. [ 08 October 2008: Message edited by: RW ] [ 08 October 2008: Message edited by: RW ]
From: x | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502
|
posted 08 October 2008 02:23 PM
RW, I HAVE seen some studies on teh linsk between drug comapny representatives impact (both through personal relationships and gifts, though in my experience, the personal relationship you develop with a rep is far more influential. Actually, sampling, for me, is the MOST influential factor) though I'm not sure how accurate these can really be. Advertising, marketing and branding affect us but it's more unconscious than than overt.And I certainly don't deny taht these relationships influence prescribing decisions but I NEVER and would be shocked if any of my colleagues have ever willfully prescribed the wrong medication simply in order to promote a given drug company. I mean, we really get no incentive to do so. it's not like if I prescribe a certain quota of Drug X, I get some sort of cash bonus from the comapny. What's my motivation? I've taken plenty of free lunches from drug reps, and my drawers are full of pretty useless knick-knacks with their logos on them but, really, give us some credit. Right now, I'm making close to $150K a year. I'm not gonna prescribe someone the wrong medicine because some drug rep bought me a salad and soda or gave me a $2 key chain with their logo. I don't think the lobbyist-politician relationship is a fair analogy. Though there are some aspects of lobbying that I'm sure ARE helpful. If they can educate you about their indsutry or organization and how legislation will affect them, as a representative, that's something to take into account. Same with drugs. Now jsut like lobby groups, if you're only meeting with one group and not getting all sides, you're not doing your job right but it's not like I ONLY meet with reps from pfizer and the guys from Merck can't get in to see me. Further, politicians are constantly running for re-election and need to raise money. Money that lobbysits provide. That leaves the door wide open to corruption. My job, however, doesn't depend on getting re-elected. it depends on actually being good at it. I don't take moeny from drug companies (in my case, never even an "honorarium" for speaking at a conference) so really they ahve nothing of value to offer me that could influence me, besides actual information. Here's a better analogy: Now, I said it DOES influence me but only in the brand of drug I may prescribe, not the class. But, if you look at it, why is this a bad thing? Assuming both drugs are equally effective and appropriate for the patient. Use this anlogy: I need to buy a coat for the winter and ahve to choose among 3. The three are all exaclty the same, the same features, the same quality, the same price. Except they are made by different brands. One coat manufacturer infleunces me (whether through advertising, a coupon or whatever) and I decide to buy this brand instead of the otehrs. it's jsut as good, so waht is the problem? It's not hurting me, the person who needs the coat (i.e. the patient), it may only hurt the other caot manufacturers (i.e. the pharma companies) who weren't as good at amrketing to me. But I'm no better or worse off for ahving been influenced.
From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
