Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 Ľ Other Boards Ľ Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 06-26-2007, 03:14 PM
Marth's Avatar
Marth Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingdom of Altaria
Posts: 4,206
Send a message via AIM to Marth Send a message via Yahoo to Marth
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch View Post
A little off the point, Marthykins, but how could there be addicts without accessibility? You have to take the drug to become addicted. Somewhere along the line, doctors fail (as humans do) and prescribe to someone who doesn't need it because they do a great job of faking.

I do like your pretty picture but I fail to see its relevance to my point.


There, the link above comes from an organisation dealing with addiction, and may I say it helps immensely to show you how simple a task it is to obtain prescription drugs without a doctor's consent. Sure, it requires a thief to take the doctor's pad in the first place, but they can then become suppliers, even. A less analagous and far more reliable source gives a similar implication:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Stor...023799,00.html

Straight from the news. To quote, "The abuse and trafficking of prescription drugs, including painkillers and stimulants, has overtaken the use of nearly all illegal drugs with the sole exception of cannabis, the United Nations drug control board warns today." So, I put it to you that raising the public awareness of these drugs has the potential to heighten the problem, as more and more anxious teenagers, depressed spinsters and misguided souls turn to prescription medication for temporary relief. If they don't even need to see a doctor to get their fix then where does this "trust" come into it?
Pardon, let me put it in a more explicit statement.
Advertising prescription drugs will not increase the numbers of addicts to that drug, for the following reasons:
1.- The advertisement will NEVER mention it may cause addiction.
2.- The NEW addict will hear about it's effects from ANOTHER addict, NOT from the ad.
3.- The OLD addict, when he hears the commercial, will NOT change his habits: he will not buy more or less drug, it will stay the same.
Therefore, advertising is neutral in the addiction problem. Check your own source; it doesn't say anything about advertisings having a negative impact in addiction...they advertise the drug, not the addiction after all:
(http://www.prescriptiondrugaddiction.com/about.asp)
__________________
By Khajmer
BlueJelloJelly (12:00:35): What, you going to kill me with your Wynaut?
ClockKnight (12:06:07): bidoof use take down on wynaut
ClockKnight (12:06:50): wynaut use counter!
ClockKnight (12:06:58): ko
StunkyLupus (12:07:04): OWNEDDDDDDD
  #32  
Old 06-26-2007, 03:25 PM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

FireflyK
For
Syndicate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch View Post
A little off the point, Marthykins, but how could there be addicts without accessibility? You have to take the drug to become addicted. Somewhere along the line, doctors fail (as humans do) and prescribe to someone who doesn't need it because they do a great job of faking.

I do like your pretty picture but I fail to see its relevance to my point.

http://www.prescriptiondrugaddiction.com/about.asp

There, the link above comes from an organisation dealing with addiction, and may I say it helps immensely to show you how simple a task it is to obtain prescription drugs without a doctor's consent. Sure, it requires a thief to take the doctor's pad in the first place, but they can then become suppliers, even. A less analagous and far more reliable source gives a similar implication:
There are a few drugs that are already known, like Morphine and Codeine, with huge potential for abuse. There are no advertisements in TV for either of those... Yet they are abused at high rates, as are all painkillers.

Advertising drugs will not neccesarily lead to people abusing them, first of all, because they have to know how to fake the symptom. The easiest symptom to fake is simply pain, and that would get a person all sorts of interesting, understandably wanted, pain killers. Thus, people who fake it aren't doing it because they saw an add for, say, ****** on the TV. They're doing it to get a drug, any drug that will make them feel better emotionally even though they don't need it physically.

In addition, someone who steals a pad can get anything, and trying to get un-needed meds has gone on for just about ever. TV ads don't cause it. IF you had just stolen a doctor's pad... Would you waste it on the random, side-effect riddled drugs you see on TV? Or would you go for the stuff people like, that sells well or feels best, and is not often seen as ads on TV? (Morphine, Codeine, all sorts of other painkillers, ADD meds because of supposed stimulants/intelligence raising properties, etc).

Finally, yes, some doctors mis-give drugs... But that isn't always from faking. It can be for pesronal favours, because of blackmail, or because they are getting bribes/money from doing it! Doctors are only human, too, and some can be corrupt. You can't blame ads for their moral deficiencies.


Quote:
Straight from the news. To quote, "The abuse and trafficking of prescription drugs, including painkillers and stimulants, has overtaken the use of nearly all illegal drugs with the sole exception of cannabis, the United Nations drug control board warns today." So, I put it to you that raising the public awareness of these drugs has the potential to heighten the problem, as more and more anxious teenagers, depressed spinsters and misguided souls turn to prescription medication for temporary relief. If they don't even need to see a doctor to get their fix then where does this "trust" come into it?
You do indeed need to see a doctor, in the majority of causes, to get your fix. The exception would be OTC drugs, but I fail to see how advertising THOSE would make people more likely to buy 'em for other purposes, or how that relates to an argument about debating prescrip drugs.

The fact that legal drugs are abused more than illegal ones is also not a surprise. After all, legal drugs are produced by companies who can ship them in traditional ways. What's easier to transport, 100 tons of a legal med, or 100 tons of pot? This means there is a greater supply. And, often, the demanders aren't picky about what they get, as long as it gives them the high they want.

Another thing to take into account is that some people THINK they need drugs. Hypochondriacs would be an example of this. Nor is it TV ads for meds that stimulate them- it is information on diseases. Since many surveyed admit they're subscribed to all sorts of med/doctor journals, that may be even more of a problem.

In general, TV advertising helps with brand familiarity, and helping a patient learn more about the medicines. Many, many people are misdiagnosed or don't even realize they have a problem, every year. Advertising drugs, even if only because it might cause them to take a trip to the doctor, is a good thing.
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
  #33  
Old 06-27-2007, 12:30 PM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

Neo Pikachu
Swarm
AGAINST


Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
There are a few drugs that are already known, like Morphine and Codeine, with huge potential for abuse. There are no advertisements in TV for either of those... Yet they are abused at high rates, as are all painkillers.
Okay, but case in point, anyone could get their hands on drugs to be used for the wrong intention. The point being is to minimize it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Advertising drugs will not neccesarily lead to people abusing them, first of all, because they have to know how to fake the symptom. The easiest symptom to fake is simply pain, and that would get a person all sorts of interesting, understandably wanted, pain killers. Thus, people who fake it aren't doing it because they saw an add for, say, ****** on the TV. They're doing it to get a drug, any drug that will make them feel better emotionally even though they don't need it physically.
However, the whole role of advertising is to increase awareness and/or spark interest in the product. That awareness could provoke the person into trying to obtain that drug for themselves when really they donít need it, even if they think they do. Either that, or they may require a different prescription.

Sure, this isnít always the case, but prescriptions are things of medical need, not desire. Again, whatís the difference between this and another medial operation? Imagine how a ad for a unnecessary organ transplant or a angioplasty would fare? Hate to say it, but youíd have pretty much the same effect here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
In addition, someone who steals a pad can get anything, and trying to get un-needed meds has gone on for just about ever. TV ads don't cause it. IF you had just stolen a doctor's pad... Would you waste it on the random, side-effect riddled drugs you see on TV? Or would you go for the stuff people like, that sells well or feels best, and is not often seen as ads on TV? (Morphine, Codeine, all sorts of other painkillers, ADD meds because of supposed stimulants/intelligence raising properties, etc).
Well, thatís just illegal, no other way to put it. I could go steal a copís badge and pretend Iím one, steal a FedEx truck and make it look like Iím delivering packages when it could be something more malicious, but it doesnít matter. By no means does it make it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Finally, yes, some doctors mis-give drugs... But that isn't always from faking. It can be for pesronal favours, because of blackmail, or because they are getting bribes/money from doing it! Doctors are only human, too, and some can be corrupt. You can't blame ads for their moral deficiencies.
Thatís something thatís unrelated to the presence of the ads though. In fact, the presence of advertised drugs (or lack of) wouldnít be a difference when it comes to this. As in stated in the links I had shown before, the presence of patients trying to wrestle a prescription out of their doctors is even higher with the high frequency of advertised prescription drugs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
You do indeed need to see a doctor, in the majority of causes, to get your fix. The exception would be OTC drugs, but I fail to see how advertising THOSE would make people more likely to buy 'em for other purposes, or how that relates to an argument about debating prescrip drugs.
OTC drugs are different because they are just that, you donít need a prescription to use them and they are generally less potent than the stronger drugs that do need one. They are advertised because they are readily available for consumers, where as prescription drugs, you need a doctorís clearance to get them anyway. The point being is that prescription drugs are too strong for consumers to just pick up like a carton of milk to use right away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
The fact that legal drugs are abused more than illegal ones is also not a surprise. After all, legal drugs are produced by companies who can ship them in traditional ways. What's easier to transport, 100 tons of a legal med, or 100 tons of pot? This means there is a greater supply. And, often, the demanders aren't picky about what they get, as long as it gives them the high they want.
Again, its illegal material, and it also goes back to intention. Legal med could be used in a good way (or at least legal), where as pot is just bad all the way around. Not to mention, pot is cut and packaged specifically for giving people a high, whereas legal med was packaged specifically for curing a medical problem. It all depends on how its used for, and pot has zero beneficial uses.

I could take a bucket of tar meant for paving a driveway, and dump it all over someone elseís car, and Iíd still be fined for that because thatís not how that product was meant to be used. Itís the same thing here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Another thing to take into account is that some people THINK they need drugs. Hypochondriacs would be an example of this. Nor is it TV ads for meds that stimulate them- it is information on diseases. Since many surveyed admit they're subscribed to all sorts of med/doctor journals, that may be even more of a problem.
TV ads for meds may be reminding them of it, and presenting them with solutions they may think they need when really they donít. Plus, if theyíre subscribing to all these things, chances are theyíre seeing ads for meds all the time and again, don't need it when they will be convinced they'll need it too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
In general, TV advertising helps with brand familiarity, and helping a patient learn more about the medicines. Many, many people are misdiagnosed or don't even realize they have a problem, every year. Advertising drugs, even if only because it might cause them to take a trip to the doctor, is a good thing.
However, you donít need to be familiar with a brand that youíre never going to need or use. Meanwhile, this ad is going to make you think youíll need it when really you may not. Thatís what ads are for, to simply promote the use of the product and increase awareness. Drug companies are out to make money, they wouldnít be where they are now if they didnít focus on that. Advertising leads to awareness, awareness leads to sales, and sales lead to profit. The problem here is that youíre talking about products that could potentially harm a person under normal use because they are very strong, and unless they really need them and their problem requires the use of such drugs, youíre looking at something that is not only wasteful but highly dangerous as well.

Thereís a reason why these drugs are prescription drugs in the first place. They are strong and require a doctorís direction to use properly to cure the problem and minimize risk. Otherwise, they might as well be sold alongside Advil, Tylenol, and Tums. You also need to consider overdoes and misuse as well. OTC drugs are less dangerous and are used to relieve minor aches, pains, and whatever, but overdosing on a strong prescription drug thatís meant to relieve serious medical problems and you could be looking at a situation of life and death.

This is not stuff to be fooling around with.
__________________

  #34  
Old 06-27-2007, 07:46 PM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

FireflyK
Syndicate
For



Quote:
Okay, but case in point, anyone could get their hands on drugs to be used for the wrong intention. The point being is to minimize it.
Stricter laws on how it is distributed, and better security, will accomplish that. ;) Not changing how things are advertised.




Quote:
However, the whole role of advertising is to increase awareness
Precisely. =) It helps the people get a clue of what's going on! Sure, they are not doctors... But they are learning SOMEthing, at least, from these ads. If they have the condition the drug is for, this can be quite important. ^_^

Quote:
and/or spark interest in the product.
Depends on the product, don't you think?

Look at some of the frequently advertised drugs:
Actonel
Avodart/dutasteride
Boniva
Coreg/Carvedilol phosphate
Detrol
Enbrel
Lunesta
Prilosec
Procrit/erythropoietin/Epoetin Alfa



Actonel: Side effects include chest pain, painful swallowing, heartburn, and possibly severe damage to the digestive track. You can also go through back, muscle, and other pains, or be nauseated or bloated because of it. There are no side effects- mood type ones- to make someone want to abuse the drug. It is taken for osteoperosis, something which many people experience, and thus is a good way to open their eyes to another option.

Avodart: Women can't take it, because it causes birth defects in male fetuses, liver problems, and unspecificed sexual problems. Those who know they are pregnant are not even supposed to touch it. People taking this can not give blood for half a year, minimum, after they cease taking it. Avodart supposedly helps with prostrate enlargment issues... Also not an abusable drug.

Boniva: Another calcium/osteperosis related drug. Also not something people will want to abuse, regardless of advertising.

Coreg/Carvedilol phosphate: Another commonly advertised drug, Coreg is used for high blood pressure. There is no reason for this to be abused, and many reasons for people NOT to take it unless they really need it, such as the length list of side effects. Known side effects include slowed heartbeat, weight gain, short breath, hypotension, dizziness, fainting, chest pain (Occaisonally even heart attacks), and other symptoms. People with asthma, liver issues, or anything but an exceptionally healthy heart can't take it, because it would make those things worse. This is, again, frequently advertised, and NOT abusable. It can, however, be an option for people with high blood pressuer, or a reminder for them that they should visit a doctor and see what can be done about their health issues.

Detrol: A bladder medicine, Detrol has side effects including constipation, nausea, headache, dry mouth, and severe stomach pains. This is also not a prone-to-abuse drug.

Enbrel: Though not commonly advertised anymore, it was at one point. Enbrel does not cause any effects to make a person want to take it, unlike unadvertised drugs such as morphine. In fact, Enbrel has several severe side effects. Rare cases of tuberculosis, and other serious infections, some of which were fatal, have been linked to Enbrel. It has also been blamed for causing seizures in a small group of patients. Instructions for it include telling people to inform their doctor immediately if they experience persistant bruising, or bleeding. People taking Enbrel, including in controlled studies, have a higher rate of lymphoma. 2% of users reported serious infections, and 1% reported a personality disorder or depression serious enough to medicate. Does this sound like something that will be abused, if it is advertised, or simply something that people will ask their doctors for as a last result, if they have the illness it treats?


Lunesta: A sleep medication. While sleep medicines do have the potential for abuse, advertising is not the sole cause of this... After all, the reason some were made prescription is BECAUSE otc sleep aids are abused. Thus, unless you can prove that the rate of addiction goes up after seeing an ad...
Like most prescrip drugs, Lunesta is more expensive than OTC meds with the same effect, and thus unlikely to be abused. In fact, compare the failure and satisfaction rates for Lunesta and a common OTC, such as anything using diphenhydramine (Also used as an anti-histamine, like benadryl)... Lunesta has a lower satisfaction and higher failure rate. The side effects are also listed as being more unpleasant, making it an unlikely choice of sleep-drug to be abused. Side effects include headaches, dependency, dizziness sometimes to the point of passing out, and constant drowsiness, not just after you take it to help you sleep. People who take it are cautioned to be very careful or just not drive/use machinery the morning after they have taken it, and not to drink until they quit taking the medicine.

Prilosec: A heartburn medication. They don't even list some of the side effects on their site, but the FDA does. It causes headache, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, stomach pain, cough, cold/flu symptoms, rashes, and in some cases, constipation. This is frequently advertised, but VERY rarely reported as being abused... Probably because, like most other advertised prescription drugs, it is not the sort of thing prone to abuse. Drug companies use responsibility in what they advertise- notice the lack of ads for addicting things like morphine, but common ads for drugs used only by those who need them? Drugs that are unappealing can be safely advertised, to those who actually need them.


Procrit: Side effects include Hypertension, thrombosis (Formation of blood clots/thrombi inside blood vessels), and hyper tension. The form known as Epoetin Alfa also includes other side effects... Headaches, injection site reaction, joint/muscle pain, upset stomach, indigestion, constipation, runny nose, difficulty sleeping, leg swelling, coughing up blood, shortness of breath, blue-grey color/darkening around the mouth or nails, fainting, dizziness, persistant cough, blurred vision, slowed speech, memory loss, hallucination, seizures, increased heartbeat, fever, irregular heartbeat, hives, rash, wheezing, difficulty breathing or swallowing, and itching. Clearly, some of these effects are rare, or it would be taken off the market... But laws make it illegal for side effects of a drug to be hidden, and who would abuse this medicine after hearing about all these possible consequences?

(Information comes from the official sites, the FDA site about meds, and asking a doctor. Information about what some conditions are, like thrombosis, comes from an instructional EMT booklet)


Do these drugs sound abusable to you?

If addictive pain killers were being advertised, I would agree with you. However, it seems to me that most of the advertised prescription drugs are not any fun to abuse. They don't have an effect to make people WANT to abuse them; they have effects to make people want to avoid them. They are, however, educational, and those who have the symptoms they help become informed through these ads.

Another thing to consider, as with Lunestra, is convenience and expense. Sure, sleeping meds are abused, and yes, someone who saw the ad could go get their doctor to get them Lunesta... But why?
A visit to the doctor's costs money. Prescription meds cost yet more money. And OTC drugs with the same effect are cheaper, easier to get- no doc's visit required- and have less unpleasant side effects listed. Thus, while Lunesta is in principle desirable, it makes very little sense to chose that over OTC alternatives, unless you truly have trouble sleeping... In which case the drug should be prescribed to you, because that is what it is meant to fix, sleeplessness. It doesn't have any other effects- no high, no hallucinations. The only reason to take it, then, is to help you sleep, which is a valid thing in need of medical treatment.



Quote:
That awareness could provoke the person into trying to obtain that drug for themselves when really they donít need it, even if they think they do. Either that, or they may require a different prescription.
Look at the drugs above, the commonly advertised ones, and tell me again that people are gonna WANT to try to take them if they don't need to.




Quote:
Thatís something thatís unrelated to the presence of the ads though. In fact, the presence of advertised drugs (or lack of) wouldnít be a difference when it comes to this. As in stated in the links I had shown before, the presence of patients trying to wrestle a prescription out of their doctors is even higher with the high frequency of advertised prescription drugs.
Yes, they try to get those drugs... For valid medical conditions. Did you see Marth's chart? Most of the time, patients turn out to be right about the condition, if not what drug they need... If hte ad makes them go to the doctor, even to wrangle medicine out of them, that's good! Then they can be treated. Any doctor sensible enough to hold his/her ground and examine the symptoms, then convince them to take the correct medicine....

In short, there are still more benefits than negatives to this. Also, I appear to have missed the links... Mind reposting them? ^_~ There aren't any blogs or wiki-things this time, right? Seeing as that those are NOT reliable sources...



Quote:
OTC drugs are different because they are just that, you donít need a prescription to use them
Thus making them more convenient, cheaper, and more likely to be abused.

What would you rather do...
Walk out one day and buy an OTC drug you like the effect of...
Or pay money to go visit a doctor, then pay more for a prescrip drug, and know that the use is monitored, you'll have to pay/see a doctor again for a renewed prescription, and so on?

Advertising or not, OTC drugs are more convenient and less expensive, in the majority of cases. Thus, they're more likely to be abused.






Quote:
It all depends on how its used for, and pot has zero beneficial uses.
Don't get into arguments like that... ^_~ There was no view on this chosen for the debate, and I'd rather this not get sidetracked into a discussion of whether pot has medicinal benefit.


Quote:
I could take a bucket of tar meant for paving a driveway, and dump it all over someone elseís car, and Iíd still be fined for that because thatís not how that product was meant to be used. Itís the same thing here.
But, would it be the fault of the person who advertised the tar?

What if I advertise saran-wrap, and you go buy it and wrap someone's car? What if I advertise eggs, and you go buy them and egg someone's house? Should the ads be taken down, because a few people abuse the advertised product?


Quote:
TV ads for meds may be reminding them of it, and presenting them with solutions they may think they need when really they donít.
Stats/proof?

Quote:
Plus, if theyíre subscribing to all these things, chances are theyíre seeing ads for meds all the time and again, don't need it when they will be convinced they'll need it too.
Stats/proof?

Sure, some people will abuse drugs... But again, I refer you to the terribly unpleasant side effects, with a lack of a 'high' or other good effect, of some of the oft-advertised drugs. ^_~ Think someone wants to risk coughing up blood or fainting or constant nausea... For something that won't even get them high?

No.

They'll llikely go abuse something OTC, or a prescrip drug that is NOT advertised. Morphine and such can cause a nice mood effect, and is likely to be abused, despite not being advertised. Many painkillers, despite not being advertised, are abused, so clearly, the ads are not the problem. Hell, even OTCs can be... Take enough benadryl, and you'll hallucinate.

There are many OTC, or non-advertised prescription drugs, that are abused. The ads have a minimal effect, and do more good than harm.



Quote:
However, you donít need to be familiar with a brand that youíre never going to need or use.
But it doens't hurt to be.
If I see an ad for a high blood pressure med, I'm not gonna think "Oh, I want it!"
Hell no. There's no high from them, and the side effects, to be frank, suck.

Quote:
Meanwhile, this ad is going to make you think youíll need it when really you may not.
Proof?


Quote:
Thatís what ads are for, to simply promote the use of the product and increase awareness. Drug companies are out to make money, they wouldnít be where they are now if they didnít focus on that.
And thus, getting awareness out is in their best interest.
So?
They're not harming anyone by making them aware. They're not using scare tactics, telling you "take this or you might die!"
They're simply telling about the drug.

Quote:
Advertising leads to awareness, awareness leads to sales, and sales lead to profit.
In some sorts of ads, yes.
However, the advertised item won't be sold if it is not APPEALING to the customer.
Medicines that cause certain effects are.... But those aren't the sort advertised.
Again, if there is no emotional benefit, and arguably no physical one for those who don't need the drug, who will risk wasting time/money to get a drug with terrible side effects?



Quote:
Thereís a reason why these drugs are prescription drugs in the first place. They are strong and require a doctorís direction to use properly to cure the problem and minimize risk.
And...?
Some of these drugs must be monitored carefully while used, and so on. Yes, some are strong and must be used properly to minimize risk..
But tylenol is OTC, and many people experience tylenol toxicity, or have their liver severely damaged by overuse.
Face it, many things have the potential for overuse.
Nutmeg, a common spice, can cause euphoria, a hangover-esque effect, hallucinations described as akin to an acid trip, and in very large quantities, can even cause palpitations. Should we legislate nutmeg, too?



Quote:
Otherwise, they might as well be sold alongside Advil, Tylenol, and Tums. You also need to consider overdoes and misuse as well. OTC drugs are less dangerous and are used to relieve minor aches, pains, and whatever, but overdosing on a strong prescription drug thatís meant to relieve serious medical problems and you could be looking at a situation of life and death.
Less dangerous?
Overdosing on many OTC things can cause death.
Tylenol, for instance, can cause severe liver damage, if not death, if used even regularly, not even abused.
Medicines ARE dangerous, OTC or not.
However, medical conditions are also very dangerous, and this is why drugs should be advertised. The awareness NEEDS to be out there. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I'd agree on tightening laws around prescription medicines, to prevent abuse... But ads are good, and should remain.
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
  #35  
Old 06-27-2007, 09:41 PM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

Neo Pikachu
Swarm
AGAINST


Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Stricter laws on how it is distributed, and better security, will accomplish that. ;) Not changing how things are advertised.
The restriction in this case would halt the spread of misinformation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Precisely. =) It helps the people get a clue of what's going on! Sure, they are not doctors... But they are learning SOMEthing, at least, from these ads. If they have the condition the drug is for, this can be quite important. ^_^
Ads are solely meant to get people to buy the product and to make them aware that the product exists so that they may buy it, not inform them on possible medical conditions. Trust me, they do it for the money, not to be charitable. Thatís a basic concept.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Depends on the product, don't you think?

Do these drugs sound abusable to you?
Not for abuse, but the reason being that ads may get someone to think they need to treat a medical condition they may think they have, when really they donít. Having the doctor to make that check is the big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
If addictive pain killers were being advertised, I would agree with you. However, it seems to me that most of the advertised prescription drugs are not any fun to abuse. They don't have an effect to make people WANT to abuse them; they have effects to make people want to avoid them. They are, however, educational, and those who have the symptoms they help become informed through these ads.
Addiction is only a minor element of it, the major point at hand is the misinformation the ads give in getting people to think they may really have this problem, need the prescription, when really its nothing like that. Second, its pointless anyway, since the only way anyone should be getting their hands on it is because they really need it, the prescription matches their medical needs, and that a doctor can verify this. Otherwise, you have people taking it on whim, and thatís not good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Another thing to consider, as with Lunestra, is convenience and expense. Sure, sleeping meds are abused, and yes, someone who saw the ad could go get their doctor to get them Lunesta... But why?
A visit to the doctor's costs money. Prescription meds cost yet more money. And OTC drugs with the same effect are cheaper, easier to get- no doc's visit required- and have less unpleasant side effects listed. Thus, while Lunesta is in principle desirable, it makes very little sense to chose that over OTC alternatives, unless you truly have trouble sleeping... In which case the drug should be prescribed to you, because that is what it is meant to fix, sleeplessness. It doesn't have any other effects- no high, no hallucinations. The only reason to take it, then, is to help you sleep, which is a valid thing in need of medical treatment.
Fine, but thatís just the thing. A doctor that just hands out prescriptions without really looking over the drug and the patientís information is, nothing short of a quack. Trust me, not every doctor would be doing that, and the most sensible ones and the most professional of them wouldnít be handing out random haphazard prescriptions because the patient asked for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Look at the drugs above, the commonly advertised ones, and tell me again that people are gonna WANT to try to take them if they don't need to.
A persuasive ad might think they really need it. After all, thatís what ads are intended to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Yes, they try to get those drugs... For valid medical conditions. Did you see Marth's chart? Most of the time, patients turn out to be right about the condition, if not what drug they need... If hte ad makes them go to the doctor, even to wrangle medicine out of them, that's good! Then they can be treated. Any doctor sensible enough to hold his/her ground and examine the symptoms, then convince them to take the correct medicine....
Right, but this isnít the case all of the time. And 53% leaves a lot of open margin for error, and that was the best of the bunch. I wouldnít put too much weight on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
In short, there are still more benefits than negatives to this. Also, I appear to have missed the links... Mind reposting them? ^_~ There aren't any blogs or wiki-things this time, right? Seeing as that those are NOT reliable sources...
See post #12. No blogs, no wikis. And if you want more, trust me, Iíll get more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Thus making them more convenient, cheaper, and more likely to be abused.

What would you rather do...
Walk out one day and buy an OTC drug you like the effect of...
Or pay money to go visit a doctor, then pay more for a prescrip drug, and know that the use is monitored, you'll have to pay/see a doctor again for a renewed prescription, and so on?

Advertising or not, OTC drugs are more convenient and less expensive, in the majority of cases. Thus, they're more likely to be abused.
Like I said before, its not always about abuse, but misuse is also another issue. Yeah, you can misuse an OTC drug like a prescription drug, but using it normally will usually not result in side-effects or problems.

The reason why prescription drugs need a doctorís clearance is because they are more powerful, may have more side effects, and could be dangerous is the dosage is a little off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Don't get into arguments like that... ^_~ There was no view on this chosen for the debate, and I'd rather this not get sidetracked into a discussion of whether pot has medicinal benefit.
Well, then why did you bring the subject of pot up in the first place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
But, would it be the fault of the person who advertised the tar?
The example was meant to show the possible way another product can be misused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
What if I advertise saran-wrap, and you go buy it and wrap someone's car? What if I advertise eggs, and you go buy them and egg someone's house? Should the ads be taken down, because a few people abuse the advertised product?
Now youíre missing the point entirelyÖ

See below. \/

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Stats/proof?
#12

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Stats/proof?
#12

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Sure, some people will abuse drugs... But again, I refer you to the terribly unpleasant side effects, with a lack of a 'high' or other good effect, of some of the oft-advertised drugs. ^_~ Think someone wants to risk coughing up blood or fainting or constant nausea... For something that won't even get them high?
However, misinformation from an ad could cause someone to think theyíll need the drug despite the side effects. Not all misuses of drugs are from abuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
No.

They'll llikely go abuse something OTC, or a prescrip drug that is NOT advertised. Morphine and such can cause a nice mood effect, and is likely to be abused, despite not being advertised. Many painkillers, despite not being advertised, are abused, so clearly, the ads are not the problem. Hell, even OTCs can be... Take enough benadryl, and you'll hallucinate.
Again, product misuse, hence with the bucket of tar example. The difference is the strength in the drugs. Follow the directions on an OTC drug and youíll be fine. Meanwhile, a prescription drug has much more specialized dosage instructions, and too much could cause a lot of problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
There are many OTC, or non-advertised prescription drugs, that are abused. The ads have a minimal effect, and do more good than harm.
ďMore good than harmĒ is an opinion-based statement on behalf of yourself.

Again, ads could lead to the misinformation of the patient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
But it doens't hurt to be.
If I see an ad for a high blood pressure med, I'm not gonna think "Oh, I want it!"
Hell no. There's no high from them, and the side effects, to be frank, suck.
Again, its not always for abuse. A med could be taken because an ad lead a person to believe what they thought might have been a problem addressed by the med could be something entirely different. Now youíre looking at a drug used by someone who was misinformed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Proof?
#12

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
And thus, getting awareness out is in their best interest.
So?
They're not harming anyone by making them aware. They're not using scare tactics, telling you "take this or you might die!"
They're simply telling about the drug.
No, they make you think the drug will relieve symptoms theyíll make you think you have when really you donít. Thatís misinformation and that could lead to problems in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
In some sorts of ads, yes.
However, the advertised item won't be sold if it is not APPEALING to the customer.
Medicines that cause certain effects are.... But those aren't the sort advertised.
Again, if there is no emotional benefit, and arguably no physical one for those who don't need the drug, who will risk wasting time/money to get a drug with terrible side effects?
Again, misinformation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
And...?
Some of these drugs must be monitored carefully while used, and so on. Yes, some are strong and must be used properly to minimize risk..
But tylenol is OTC, and many people experience tylenol toxicity, or have their liver severely damaged by overuse.
Face it, many things have the potential for overuse.
Nutmeg, a common spice, can cause euphoria, a hangover-esque effect, hallucinations described as akin to an acid trip, and in very large quantities, can even cause palpitations. Should we legislate nutmeg, too?
ďVery largeĒ quantities. Heck, just about anything could be dangerous in very large quantities. The difference is that overdoing on meds in even just small quantities could be dangerous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Less dangerous?
Overdosing on many OTC things can cause death.
Tylenol, for instance, can cause severe liver damage, if not death, if used even regularly, not even abused.
Medicines ARE dangerous, OTC or not.
However, medical conditions are also very dangerous, and this is why drugs should be advertised. The awareness NEEDS to be out there. The benefits outweigh the risks.
Patients may think they know what would be best for them, but its doctors who have the medical experience, technology, and know-how to know what the patient really needs. Trust me, some people may think they know whatís best when really they donít.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
I'd agree on tightening laws around prescription medicines, to prevent abuse... But ads are good, and should remain.
Donít really need them, or at least the public doesnít. Itís really doctors that need to review them, see how they measure up, analyze the conditions theyíre meant to treat and consider their application.
__________________

  #36  
Old 06-27-2007, 10:08 PM
Finglonger's Avatar
Finglonger Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: California
Posts: 2,898
Send a message via AIM to Finglonger
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

FING
against adverts
syndicate

Im not going to quote a million lines as everyone else seems so fond of doing, but Im going to address some of the main points. Those for ads are banking on the ability to spread information, to make people aware of drugs that could really help them. A seemingly noble effort.

But you're all forgetting what Advertisements are for. Principally you advertise in order to move products, doesn't it seem a little deceptive to actively try to sell drugs? The problem isn't so much abuse of the drugs by the patients, its abuse by the drug companies. These drug advertisements aren't about helping people, they're about turning a profit. Its very profitable to convince people that they are sick and conveniently have them know about your overpriced drug. Health should NOT be a commodity, yet these commercials turn them into one. Instead of getting sound medical advice from a doctor these ads encourage people to ask their doctor specifically about them, increasing the chance that these drugs are prescribed to them. The drug companies invest heavily into the medical field in order to get their overpriced drugs to the patient. Note that nobody is concerned with the health of the patient or their ability to pay.

This is a slippery slope, once medicine becomes a huge industry it becomes beneficial to keep people sick, to suppress new cures. You have to ask why we still have so many curable diseases in this world, poorer nations suffer from diseases that have been all but eliminated from the first world. The simple fact is drug companies finance most medical research and only do so when its profitable to them. Its not profitable to try and cure human trypansomiasis (Sleeping sickness) because it predominantly occurs in Africa and Central America. Once health becomes a for profit business the decisions to finance research will hinge on whether or not it is profitable to do so.

----
On a side note I want it to be known that I find asking for *proof* to be poor debating ettiquete, if you know somebody is wrong then prove them wrong. asking for a source shows you have nothing on them, it shows you have no evidence. It also shows that you can't come up with a clever retort...it basically shows that you've been argued into a corner. Sorry this is just a Pet peeve of mine, this has nothing to do with the debate at hand.
__________________
"Eyes of a fallen angel, Eyes of a tragedy."
  #37  
Old 06-27-2007, 10:43 PM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

FireflyK
Syndicate
For

First, as to those links... I went back to page one and found 'em.

Link 1. Discussion of ads, so far, has been about the US, not Canada.
Perhaps you don't like how ads are shown in Canada... But most of us have been discussing drug ads in other areas, sooo... A study relevant there would be better.
Also, dealing with Canada... Even there, drug ads are a good thing. They inform. Sure, each place has different laws, but drug companies DO still have to be honest. They can't hide side effects, and etc.

Link 2. I read this, and something stood out.
"As the article points out, ďA 1997 survey of doctors found that 71 percent thought the ads would pressure their colleagues into giving drugs they would not normally prescribeĒ "
These doctors said OTHERS would be pressured... But they seem to think that they, themselves, know not to do this.
This seems like a case of doctors lacking faith in each other. These people did not say "I have been pressured into prescribing drugs due to people seeing ads, and this is when/how it happened." In other words, they did not even do a study, the simply gave a personal opinion! These doctors are experts on medicine. However, they are not psychologists, they are not experts on what other doctors, other humans, will do in such a situation. Thus, I believe this is merely a 'shock' tactic, meant to make good news. Studies actually contradict this, after all. (And here we're back to Marth's nifty little chart, showing all the ways that drug ads help people...)

3. This appears to be a spin off of Wikipedia, which is an unreliable source, and thus means just about nothing in debates. Also, something to note is that this claims, since you seem to think it is a valid source, that advertising drugs to consumers is legal in only 2 places- the US, and New Zealand. This contradicts your first Canadian article- if it isn't legal to advertise drugs like this in Canada, then how can drug ads be causing people to demand those drugs, unless the law isn't making sure the ads aren't shown?





Quote:
The restriction in this case would halt the spread of misinformation.
And here I thought we had 'truth in advertising' rules for that. People can get in huge trouble, as can companies, if they don't tell the truth. That's why they have to admit to side effects, too. The restriction does not stop misinformation, because the companies have to be honest to be able to broadcast ads, without ending up with humongous fines, licenses being revoked, or jail time for all those involved.


Quote:
Ads are solely meant to get people to buy the product and to make them aware that the product exists so that they may buy it, not inform them on possible medical conditions.
Yep. However, it has the side effect of informing them.
Also, that's why we have doctors- to decide who really needs medicines. For many issues, all sorts of medical tests can be run to ensure people DO need medications...

Quote:
Trust me, they do it for the money, not to be charitable. Thatís a basic concept.
Yes, but they're not forcing the drugs on people. In addition, as I have stated, the sorts of drugs that are commonly advertised are not things people will WANT to abuse. Nor can you get, say, over-active bowel drugs, or high blood pressure medications, or even osteoperosis meds (Those are VERY commonly advertised) without tests being done. =) Thus, if you dn't really need the drug, the test will show it, and you will not be given the medication.


Quote:
Not for abuse, but the reason being that ads may get someone to think they need to treat a medical condition they may think they have, when really they donít. Having the doctor to make that check is the big difference.
And to get a prescription drug, you need to go to the doctor, and they WILL check before prescribing it... So what's the problem? It raised your awareness of the conditoin, and got you to get tested for it, but if you don't need the med, you don't get it.

Most of those meds have conditions that ARE tested for, either through blood tests, or other means. High blood pressure, for example, or osteoperosis (Bone density tests) can indeed be done. =) Thus, you won't get the med if you don't need it, and often only if other, less strong things don't work first.

The sorts of drugs advertised, as seen in my examples, are NOT the sort that are easily abusable. Who wants to get themselves given an unneeded perscription for a medication that makes them sick, dizzy, or even cough up blood? People abuse drugs for a few reasons, the main one often being to feel good. Coughing up blood does not feel good. ^_~ Nor do you want to take, say, a high blood pressure med if you don't have high blood pressure. When it worked, dropping your bp, you would have all the unpleasantness that comes from having too LOW blood pressure- definitely an encouragement to not continue taking the drug.


Quote:
Addiction is only a minor element of it, the major point at hand is the misinformation the ads give in getting people to think they may really have this problem, need the prescription, when really its nothing like that.
Indeed, addiction is unlikely from the sorts of drugs advertised.

However, so is the idea of people who 'think' they need the drug. If they aren't already taking an OTC, why would they think they need the prescrip drug? Even if they do, they MUST go to a doctor to get it, and if the doctor is doing his job of examining a patient before diagnosing them, it will not be an issue. =) Finally, even if they are given the drug, they will realize when they take it that they should stop. The side effects alone will encourage them...

And if they don't, the effect the meds have on someone who doesn't need them, will. Look at some of those drugs. You take it when you don't need it, and it will be very unpleasant, teaching you to stop taking it... Or, they won't harm you at all. Milder calcium/osteoperosis things, for example, are probably not gonna kill you. Extra calcium, unless you are overdosing on the med (Which is a problem even IF you do need it) is not really bad for you. Most people don't ingest enough calcium, and could use the extra. Thus Actonel, Boniva, and etc will not cause many problems for people who take it without needing it.

Avodart: Another commonly advertised drug. This one is unlikely to be misused because of what it is for, problems urinating due to an enlarged prostrate. This is very easy to check for- If you don't have trouble peeing, you don't need it. Should you take it when you don't need it, it will... Er.. Have effects to make you realize quickly that you don't need it, shall we say. ;)

Coreg: A high blood pressure drug with icky side effects. If those don't put a person off, the intended effect, should they not need it, WILL. It is meant to lower blood pressure. If you take it when your blood pressure is normal, then you will get lowered blood pressure, something unpleasant enough to teach you to stop. In addition, blood pressure can very easily be tested for by any doctor, so it is highly unlikely that this will be wrongfully prescribed, no matter how insistent a patient is. And what patient is insistent over a bp drug? That's not the kind of thing where you can mistakenly think you need a drug for it, a simple test of your bp will tell you if it is low/normal/high.

Detrol: A bladder medication. Again, the... 'messy' side effects of taking it when you don't need it will very shortly teach someone to stop. Also, I believe this can be tested for... if your bladder is infected, enlarged, or whatever, they can check for it. Thus, once more, a doctor won't be fooled by a patient who insists they need the drug, and the patient can see from test results that they are okay or need a different, milder drug.

Enbrel: Horrid side effects, the worst of all the things advertised. A good doctor can easily convince someone to take a different drug as needed, with less bad effects. Enbrel blocks TNFs, a protein, and this can be tested for. Thus, if you don't need this, the doctor will know. You can't fake symptoms for this. Also, as you might have guessed, protein/enzyme deficiences or malfunctions are not something people know about much, so it is VERY good for this information to be out there!

Lunesta: I think people know if they have trouble sleeping or not. If you can't even tell if you are an insomniac, you have more issues than just being misprescribed a drug. This, however, will simply make you sleep for a while... Hardly 'dangerous', even if for some it is uneeded. Thus, overall, drug ads still have good that overweighs the bad. =)

Prilosec: Yes, heartburn can be confused with other things. However, this can help in general with inflamation of those areas, so even if it is prescribed for a similar but different condition, it can still eliminate some symptoms...
Being not-as-efficient as possible is not harmful enough to outweigh the goods of medication ads.
In addition, if it does nothing, and whatever symptoms a person has continue, they'd sensibly return to the doctor to try something different, and maybe listen that time to a recommendation. Problem solved.

Procrit: Increases red blood cells, and deals with anemia. Blood cell counts and tests for iron for anemia can be run easily. If you don't need this, your doctor will know. You'll need a test, anyway, so they can give you the right dose, so this is unlikely to be prescribed if unneeded.



Thus, these commonly-advertised drugs are not likely to be prescribed by mistake, even if someone pressures a doctor. Tests can be run to see if they are needed or not. And, finally, someone who takes an unneeded one will either stop from the effect it'll have on someone who doesn't need it, or in the case of calcium supplements and lunesta, not be harmed by taking it uneccesarily. I feel this is grounds to rule that the numerous benefits outweigh those little setbacks.




Quote:
Second, its pointless anyway, since the only way anyone should be getting their hands on it is because they really need it, the prescription matches their medical needs, and that a doctor can verify this.
Brand familiarity. Comfort. Knowing what's wrong with them can be fixed.

Some people distrust meds. Seeing it regularly gets them used to it. Have you seen the stats of how many people get prescribed meds, and then don't take them? Then they wonder why they get worse. People need to take their needed meds.

Second, if you don't have a common disease, you might not think there's a cure. Or, you might be a little worried, that you might be the only one with it, or just otherwise cautious about going to a doctor. Seeing these may help someone realize there's a treatment, and that they're not alone. Also, insurance companies don't cover every drug there is... Sometimes they don't even cover generics instead of brand names. Even if it only effects insurance, that saves people money, thus making it good.


Quote:
Otherwise, you have people taking it on whim, and thatís not good.
That's why only doctors can give those drugs, and it could be argued that people don't just take OTCs on a whim, either... Most people, anyway.



Quote:
Fine, but thatís just the thing. A doctor that just hands out prescriptions without really looking over the drug and the patientís information is, nothing short of a quack.
Right.
Most doctors are smarter, but what if they miss one medicine?
Or, in the case of Lunesta... What if you just go to your doctor for a checkup, have issues sleeping, and ask them for something to help? They're not a sleep specialist, so having knowledge of your own is good.

Finally, you should take allergies into account. People are allergic to the damnedest things. ^^; Some people are even allergic to forms of penicillin, or other important drugs... Which is why they NEED drug info! Then, if they know they react to something in the drug, or know that someone in their distant family has and they don't wanna risk it (Doctors do check your medical history, but things have slipped by before. Also, they don't check distant family records... But if your, say, aunt's family are all deathly allergic to something, you'll want to avoid that thing just in case!)....


Quote:
Trust me, not every doctor would be doing that, and the most sensible ones and the most professional of them wouldnít be handing out random haphazard prescriptions because the patient asked for it.
Well, if they won't hand out prescriptions in a haphazard way, what's the problem with ads? Clearly, it doesn't give the drugs a way to look more abusable, it doesn't let people obtain them any more easily, and it does let them know more about the product and the condition it treats.
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
  #38  
Old 06-27-2007, 10:43 PM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

FireflyK
Syndicate
For the ads

(Sorry for the double post, but I wrote over 20K, so it would not all FIT in one message! ^^; )


Quote:
A persuasive ad might think they really need it. After all, that’s what ads are intended to do.
Tests can be run to check if they have the conditions that many advertised prescription drugs treat.
Also, check scripts of common ads. They're not saying "You have this", or even implying it. They simply explain the symptoms of the condition, their drug and how it helps, include a catchy slogan (Memorable, but I doubt a good slogan will make you think you desparately need the drug), and then show a cute ad to try to make you think their drug's the best for that particular thing. The fact remains, however, that doctors can and should be testing for a condition before giving you any medicine, so ads don't cause a problem.


Quote:
Right, but this isn’t the case all of the time. And 53% leaves a lot of open margin for error, and that was the best of the bunch. I wouldn’t put too much weight on that.
It didn't mention bad things occuring. It simply said that over 50% of people had 'improved communicatoin' after seeing the ad.
Many others could very well have had the same level of communication. I see no stats on how many had worsened communication coming from you to refute that, either.

Also, there were other good effects. The other fourty-something percent could have been positively effected, but in a different way. For example, of all the people, 53% had that better talk... But 42% said the patient was more aware (And thus presumably more comfortable and knowledgable with/about) drugs. That could have been people not included in the 53%, after all.

Looking at all the good things on that chart, I see that people had to have multiple good effects, in fact, 'cause if you add all the benefits up, they go to over 100%. This leaves several possibilities...
1. Only a few had an improved experience (min of 53%). However, they had multiple good effects come from drug ads.
2. All of them have an improved experience, and some of them had more than one good effect.

Look at all the good effects there...
53% had better communication
42% had better knowledge (Patient)
10% was also more education. We don't know who had the better info, but hey, either way, this is good!
9% had the patient being more willing to take the Rx drug. It doesn't say '9% demanded it', it said they were willing to take it. If you're dealing with someone who is afraid to try medicines, and the ad convinced them to follow the doctor's order to take it, that's a very good thing.
6% had a previously unnoticed medical condition diagnosed. That may not seem huge, but think about how many people see these ads. 6% of that huge number is pretty good...
3% Had an unspecified 'other' beneficial result
2%, the patient sought treatment for a 'serious' condition. That, again, is a good effect.


Quote:
And if you want more, trust me, I’ll get more.
Alright. Go back and add proof to the things I pointed out in this and the last post, 'cause your links don't actually, reliably, support some of what you've said.

Quote:
Like I said before, its not always about abuse, but misuse is also another issue.
Any doctor worth his salt will test for the condition before giving the drug.
Problem solved.
And since you already said abuse isn't usually teh issue... What's left to be a 'bad' thing about ads?


Quote:
Yeah, you can misuse an OTC drug like a prescription drug, but using it normally will usually not result in side-effects or problems
Nope. =) Several do, in fact. Not even including the ones taken off the market, the most common ones can cause problems. Aspirin can cause reyes syndrome and blindness, etc. This is most common in kids, but can happen in adults, too. Also, tylenol causes liver damage, and that is OTC, and from proper use. Sure, if you only use tylenol occaisonally, it won't harm you... But if someone takes it every month, even just once, for their period, they could get nasty liver issues. And from person to person, teh amount they can tolerate differs.

OTC drugs, in fact, can cause prescription drugs to be dangerous. Codeine mixed with tylenol, for example. The codeine, aside from being potentially addictive (And if you have a chronic pain condition, you're gonna be taking it permanently anyway to control that), isn't that dangerous. The tylenol in it, however, causes liver damage.


Quote:
Well, then why did you bring the subject of pot up in the first place?
Because someone else on your side of the debate mentioned illegal drugs, and I was specifying one to disprove their theory, obviously. xD


Quote:
The example was meant to show the possible way another product can be misused.
But the point remains... Does advertising cause the misuse? I don't think it does.


Quote:
Now you’re missing the point entirely…
No, your point is simply not valid. ;) If people will ALWAYS misuse things, then the ad is not at fault, 'cause not-advertised things are misused as well.

Also, your proof does not actually prove what you claims it does... Try again. ^_^



Quote:
However, misinformation from an ad could cause someone to think they’ll need the drug despite the side effects. Not all misuses of drugs are from abuse.
Tests. Doctors will not prescribe something if the test shows you don't have the condition... Unless they're corrupt, and that is then from abuse/personal misconduct, not from ads. =)


Quote:
Again, product misuse, hence with the bucket of tar example. The difference is the strength in the drugs. Follow the directions on an OTC drug and you’ll be fine. Meanwhile, a prescription drug has much more specialized dosage instructions, and too much could cause a lot of problems.
Also wrong, OTC drugs can be just as dangerous. And some drug instructions are simple, for prescription stuff.

I have in front of me a couple bottles of prescription meds, in fact. None of them have complex instructions.

Codeine w/ tylenol:
Take 1 to 2 tablespoonful
Every 4 hours as needed
for pain

Fexofenadine:
Take one tablet by mouth every day

Tussafed-LA caplet:
Take one tablet Twice daily

Dura-vent/DA tablet:
Take 1 tablet at bedtime


Do those look 'complicated' to you? ^^: I think they're pretty simply.

Many prescription meds are done by weight, just like OTC things such as tylenol. You know.. "Age this-this, weight this-this, one pill. Age this-this, weight this-this, 2 pills." And so on. Or, they can do them in liquid. IE, '50 pounds or less= 1 teaspoon. 51-100 pounds= 2 teaspoon.'

And so on.



Quote:
“More good than harm” is an opinion-based statement on behalf of yourself.
And yet, in this case, it SHOULD be.
The only 'opinions' that should be used should be for answering the exact question of the debate- Whether advertising prescription meds is good and should be allowed.

You can not use opinions instead of facts within the argument, however, to choose a side, you must use opionin. This is because you can not, with absolute 100% proof, say that one side is totally right, and the other is totally wrong.


Quote:
Again, ads could lead to the misinformation of the patient.
That's why doctors run tests to see if you actually have hte conditions the drug treats, unless they are dumb as dirt... Which is then medical malpractice or human error/stupidity, not the fault of an ad.


Quote:
Again, its not always for abuse. A med could be taken because an ad lead a person to believe what they thought might have been a problem addressed by the med could be something entirely different. Now you’re looking at a drug used by someone who was misinformed.
If the doctor can't correctly run the appropriate tests to see if they need the drug (Because if you look at commonly advertised drugs, as I listed above, you'll see that the conditions they treat CAN be tested for!), then they need their license pulled.

Quote:
#12
Doesn't prove it. Try again.


Quote:
No, they make you think the drug will relieve symptoms they’ll make you think you have when really you don’t.
Really?
I don't think someone can make you think you have osteperosis, unless they can falsify bone density tests.
I don't think someone can make you think you are incontinent, unless they can someone mind-control your bladder.
I don't think someone can make you think you have ED, either... And I think your spouse/lover/etc could easily correct you on that one. ;)

There are tests, or even obvious ways to tell, if people have certain conditions. Luckily, the conditions cured by the most frequently advertised drugs are easily recognized and tested for, thus eliminating any 'confusion'.

Quote:
“Very large” quantities.
I was checking to see if you'd actually look it up. ;) Makes it easier for me if I know you don't research.

Nutmeg is sold in tiny bottles. There's a reason for this...

7 nuts is enough to cause severe hallucinations. Even less than that can cause other harmful effects. That's like eating 7 peanuts. People could do it without even thinking.

Nutmeg is SMALL. A 'very large' quantity, also known as 7 nuts, takes up very little space. Most people wouldn't think twice about eating 7 nuts of that size. Here's a picture:

http://www.truthtree.com/images/nutmeg_family.jpg
That's nutmeg nuts on and around a normal sized spoon. See how small they are? You can fit probably 5 or more in your mouth AT ONCE. Thus, I believe it is reasonably arguable that things that aren't even restricted OR medicines can be just as dangerous as prescription medicines. =)

Quote:
Heck, just about anything could be dangerous in very large quantities. The difference is that overdoing on meds in even just small quantities could be dangerous.
Yet just an normal sized adult dose of 4 little tablets of tylenol can damage a child's liver... Just as it takes only 7 minute nutmeg nuts (if that) to be dangerous. You go past 9, and you're looking at permanent damage.



Quote:
Patients may think they know what would be best for them, but its doctors who have the medical experience, technology, and know-how to know what the patient really needs. Trust me, some people may think they know what’s best when really they don’t.
They don't know everything, however. They don't know what sorts of things you react well/badly to, unless and until you tell them. They also can't help you if you refuse to take what they prescribe, so adding comfort is good. Finally, advertising expands publicity of the drug, making it more likely for insurance companies to at least partially cover the cost. That makes it affordable. (Check health insurance sites- They cover almost all the frequently advertised drugs.)


Quote:
Don’t really need them, or at least the public doesn’t. It’s really doctors that need to review them, see how they measure up, analyze the conditions they’re meant to treat and consider their application.
Doctors are only human. They make mistakes. Knowledge IS power... And it's good for people to have that, along with a 'safeguard' in case a doctor messes up. It HAS been known to happen. Even if the doctor does well, how does it hurt for the patient to have a further knowledge of how what they've been prescribed will work?



----
And @ fing-
I also can't prove that everyone else on the planet is a mind-eating Alien, who has replaced a human being I used to know... But should I have to argue against that?
The burden of proof lies on the person stating an argument. Thus, if someone tries to argue something I find ludicrous, and they have no proof, I will ask them to find some.
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
  #39  
Old 06-27-2007, 11:12 PM
Finglonger's Avatar
Finglonger Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: California
Posts: 2,898
Send a message via AIM to Finglonger
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

Quote:
There are tests, or even obvious ways to tell, if people have certain conditions. Luckily, the conditions cured by the most frequently advertised drugs are easily recognized and tested for, thus eliminating any 'confusion'.
The most common drug ads on the market are depression ads. Depression and bipolar disorder are two of the most commonly misdiagnosed mental disorders. the drug is a quick fix, not a cure, a suppresion. Its the easy way out.

But lets look at this from another angle

I find that you havent addressed the concern of suppression of more effective medicine. According Dr. Duncan long author of Attaining Medical Self Efficiency An Informed Citizens Guide, Drug comapnies suppress less marketable, cheaper, and more effective medicines.

Since drug companies make more profits with more expensive drugs, they suppress cheaper more effective cures. Other companies marketing a cheaper solution can't afford the billions that these giants put into marketing their bank breaking drugs.

Long also states that big companies often put out much cheaper generic drugs that operate almost the same as their name brand counterparts. the extra cost to the consumer is packaging and advertising. Advertising raises the cost of drugs.

Since drug companies invest so heavily in advertising both to the patient and to the doctor the more expensive medicine is more likely to be prescribed. Advertising increases the cost of medication. In a country like the United States where medical insurance isnt universal this can be a huge burden on the patient. A patient who has a legitimate illness is also less likely to be earning as much as a healthy human being and with advertised medication is more likely to have more expensive.

who benefits here? And who gets screwed? The drug companies profit, the patient goes broke. Is this justice? Is this right?


--------------------
Quote:
And @ fing-
I also can't prove that everyone else on the planet is a mind-eating Alien, who has replaced a human being I used to know... But should I have to argue against that?
The burden of proof lies on the person stating an argument. Thus, if someone tries to argue something I find ludicrous, and they have no proof, I will ask them to find some.
Debate Ettiquete works against you in this case, its considered very bad form to just yell out "let me see your sources." Even in your example it would be very easy to calmly disprove the argument instead of implicating yourself as incompetent by not having anything to argue. Discrediting an opponent is the weakest form of debate. Thats all, its just a pet peeve, and considered poor form. Lets not get sidetracked, we can talk about this elsewhere if you really want

Source
Long, Duncan Attaining Medical Self Efficiency An Informed Citizens Guide
__________________
"Eyes of a fallen angel, Eyes of a tragedy."
  #40  
Old 06-27-2007, 11:37 PM
Finch's Avatar
Finch Offline
Inazuma
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 5,201
Send a message via Skype™ to Finch
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

Finch, Swarm
Against


Sorry, I'm going to stop you for a moment to bring some evidence to light: http://www.newstarget.com/007608.html

Now, we can see that the drug companies are witholding some information about what they promote. Vioxx (a painkiller) has been shown to be far more dangerous to the user than previous evidence had suggested; evidence which was distorted for the sake of wrongful false advertising. It's not exactly like "increased heart attack risk" is something you'd just forget when you were describing the characteristics of your drug to the public in advertising, now is it? It's true that Vioxx is off the market now, but it was on long enough to cause some damage, and it's one of those "abuse-prone painkillers" you're so scared of.

The fact that the attempts to keep such a dangerous medicine available came from well inside the FDA itself leads us to question the reliability of any information presented on the topic, or at least whether the full story has been shown. Your previous statistics, opposition, are questionable in terms of their validity. It's highly possible that the FDA omitted vast sections for the benefit of advertising. If this is being done, then we can only conclude that advertising leads to the withdrawal of important information on the potentially dangerous effects of prescription drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem beneficial.

Here's something directly from my source:

"...the industry pressured the FDA to legalize direct-to-consumer advertising in 1998, and since that time drug ads have polluted the airways and the world of print publications, and prescriptions for those advertised drugs have risen considerably as a direct result of the advertising."

Do you mean to tell me that the doctors made these descriptions because they needed help from their patients for diagnosis? A number of cases illustrate the absurdity of this claim. Patients demanded Vioxx when non-steroidal anti-inflammatories would have sufficed, and it killed them. All as a result of advertising. I fail to see how anything beneficial has come from advertising prescription drugs. The only effect has been the increase in untrained self-diagnosing patients. Behind all this it's plain that prescription drugs are being over-hyped through direct-to-consumer advertising, thereby increasing the dependence of the world on overpowered and dangerous synthetic medicines they don't really need. Physicians are using a metaphorical sledgehammer to crack a walnut! (metaphorically ;P)

If you need another case study to illustrate this over-prescription then here's one from jolly Canada: http://www.benzo.org.uk/amisc/benzobrief.pdf
__________________

Last edited by Finch; 06-27-2007 at 11:39 PM.
  #41  
Old 06-28-2007, 12:04 AM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

FireflyK
Syndicate
For


@ Finch- They made a mistake at first.
Now, yes, they did eventually withhold information... But they're now looking at getting their asses sued off for it. Thus, there are indeed consequences. In fact, they were taken off the market. This is not common, and is fixed as soon as it is spotted when it does occur.


The FDA tests products, and are generally considered a reliable source. While they make a few mistakes, the margin of error is small enough that they can still be considered a good source. Yours is far less likely to be reliable, because the media is known for exaggeration and such- Jayson blair, anyone?- if you want to get into the 'reliability' argument.


Also, your source mentions a 1998 issue. It has since then been resolved. xD So I fail to see the relevance. Also, that was media speculation, not proof... So IF it even existed... It would still be in the past.


Quote:
Patients demanded Vioxx when non-steroidal anti-inflammatories would have sufficed, and it killed them. All as a result of advertising.
Nope. =) It wasn't the advertising that killed them. It was the fact that companies illegaly hid information about their drugs... Even from the doctors. It's not like the ads neglected the info but doctors were told, 'cause the doctors then could not have prescribed the med in good conscience. The fact of the matter is, their lying caused it, not the ads.


Quote:
I fail to see how anything beneficial has come from advertising prescription drugs
.
Well, aside from improved communication, recognition and treatment of diseases and severe conditions, a decrease in allergic shock due to the patient knowing what's in what they are taking, furthered knowledge about medicines and side effects, brand familiarity, and a greater comfort level with actually taking neccesary meds... Not much, I guess.

If you don't consider those good, however.. o.0;


Quote:
The only effect has been the increase in untrained self-diagnosing patients.
Again, tests can often show if you have the problems related to advertised medicines.


--------
@ Fing:

I am included legimitiate drugs. Physciatric drugs are a hotbed of controversy, because there have been many attempts to prove that they are almost, if not all, unneeded, harmful, mind-altering substances.

I'd also like to see statistics on those disorders being commonly misdiagnosed... Last I checked, ADD was the most misdiagnosed disorder, with many people being thought to have it when they truly did not.


Quote:
I find that you havent addressed the concern of suppression of more effective medicine.
Unless the ads are saying "OUr drug does such and such amazingly... Oh, and -other drug- is terrible and should never be used!" I don't think it is supressing other drugs.


As to Duncan Long... Mind specifying which one? There are 2-3, I believe, and if we're thinking of the same one, he's hardly a reliable source. (The one who claimed Jesus was responsible for evolution and basically everything else... He does indeed write medical articles, so I'm wondering if its the same person)

I also fail to see what advertising has to do with greedy companies. They always have, and always will, exist.


Quote:
Since drug companies make more profits with more expensive drugs, they suppress cheaper more effective cures. Other companies marketing a cheaper solution can't afford the billions that these giants put into marketing their bank breaking drugs.
Irrelevant.
TV ads for prescription medicines are not the CAUSE of this overly inflated prices, thus in a debate about TV ads for p-meds, this has no importance.


Quote:
Long also states that big companies often put out much cheaper generic drugs that operate almost the same as their name brand counterparts. the extra cost to the consumer is packaging and advertising.
That's not entirely true.
Any legitimate study would also mention brand familiarity. You pay a lot for that, and, yes, the packaging. The name brand is important, however- likely more so than advertising. Medical prices are already expanded, for maximum profit, so this is not a matter of a huge extra cost being tacked on to recoup advertising costs. There are many things that require higher prices- Greed, for one, but also, the cost it took to produce and test the drug. Then there's paying the employees who produce it, and etc.

Quote:
Advertising raises the cost of drugs.
Advertising is only one of the factors raising the cost. Even if they were banned from advertising, the prices would still be high, because companies want to make money. They would simply be getting more money, instead of shelling out extra profit for advertisements.

Advertising also raises awareness. If more people get tested after seeing an ad, and turn out to have a legitimate condition in need of treatment, more medicine is sold. Pushing higher quantity will make the company money to recoup for the ads, lessening the need to raise the prices. Either charging more, or charging less but having more customers, will raise the profit. There isn't really a need to do both.

Also, it DOES help the customer, as well. Insurance covers highly publicized drugs more often, helping make those meds affordable.

Quote:
Since drug companies invest so heavily in advertising both to the patient and to the doctor the more expensive medicine is more likely to be prescribed.
Er, not really. You see lots of ads every time you turn the TV on- but do you go out and buy everything?
The medicines aren't more likely to be prescribed simply because they are advertised. They must also A. work well enough for the patient to be willing to shell out the money for them, B. be affordable for the patient, since you can't buy if you don't have the money for it, C. be something the doctor trusts enough to recommend.

A part of the brand name recognition, and thus the ability for brand-name meds to charge more, is reliability. We know these names better- we've heard them a lot, and they have a reasonable degree of safety, or they'd be off the market or at least less popular. If something went wrong with them, it'd be in the news quickly, and all over, because they're so well known. This makes people feel safe in buying that brand, even if it costs a bit more, allowing the companies to charge more.

Quote:
Advertising increases the cost of medication.
Capitalism increases the cost of medication.
Companies will charge as much as they dare for medicines.
The fact that they must give some of that for ads does not let them raise prices even more... Because at some point, generics would be cheaper even not covered by insurance, and people would switch over to those.

You charge too much, you lose customers. That, in turn, loses you money. Thus, there is a societal limit, at some point, on how much can be charged. The small increase ads may cause, in return for the knowledge they give (And just look at how many were helped by that!) is more than worth it.

Quote:
In a country like the United States where medical insurance isnt universal this can be a huge burden on the patient.
If they charge too much extra... Then the prescription with insurance will cost more than the generic without it. In which case, people will choose the generic instead. That would make them lose money, so they will not do it. There's a limit.


Quote:
A patient who has a legitimate illness is also less likely to be earning as much as a healthy human being and with advertised medication is more likely to have more expensive.
Not always.
Allergy medicines, for instance, are very common. Many, many people have seasonal allergies, and take medicine each spring and summer. Lots of good allergy medicines are prescription only. However, they do not make less because of that.

Many people with high blood pressure still hold jobs. Many people with diabetes still hold jobs.

Obviously, someone with cancer will likely not hold down a job... But in general, lots of prescription medicines are needed by people who ARE still capable of work, despite needing medication.


Quote:
who benefits here? And who gets screwed? The drug companies profit, the patient goes broke. Is this justice? Is this right?
Does this have anything to do with ads?
Greedy companies will not disappear if medical ads are pulled from the air. They will still milk every dime they can from people who need their medicines. This is bad, but not the fault of advertising, nor a reason to ban it.

I dont' care if you hate capitalism or greedy corporations.. That's hardly caused by ads. ;)



As to Canada, Neo's links claim that direct advertising of prescription drugs to patients is illegal anyway, so I'm not interested. =p If they're breaking the law, that's a totally separate issue. In addition, that mentions the 'British Columbia Centre'... not Canada. Nor does the legimitacy of a medicine have anything to do with an ad. One could argue that benzos are bad, and should not be considered to have any medical value... But how does that mean that ads for legitimate medicines are bad?
If the fault is with the medication, then yes, the med is bad... But the ad did not make it bad. The ads are not at fault.

The Canadian part of your article appears to be arguing a sexual bias- that women with similar symptoms to men are prescribed medicine more often. This may be malpractice, but again, that is the fault of a person- a doctor- and not an ad.

Finally, I believe some of the people cited in the research of your paper have also been tied to less legitimate papers... I'd suggest researching your sources sources before posting. ^_^ You also want to make sure that the sources your sources has are not dealing with a 'conflict of interest', Id est, in a position where it benefits them to speak out against something.

Last edited by FireflyK; 06-28-2007 at 12:09 AM.
  #42  
Old 06-28-2007, 12:17 AM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

Neo Pikachu
Swarm
AGAINST


Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
And here I thought we had 'truth in advertising' rules for that. People can get in huge trouble, as can companies, if they don't tell the truth. That's why they have to admit to side effects, too. The restriction does not stop misinformation, because the companies have to be honest to be able to broadcast ads, without ending up with humongous fines, licenses being revoked, or jail time for all those involved.
Watch a drug ad sometime. See how much time they glamorize the benefits, and just make a very quick blurb about the side effects. To you the consumer, the benefits are going to look far more appealing, as thatís what the ad is supposed to do.

Youíre basically looking at information with half-truths. Not good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Yep. However, it has the side effect of informing them.
Also, that's why we have doctors- to decide who really needs medicines. For many issues, all sorts of medical tests can be run to ensure people DO need medications...
If patients want real information about the drug that isnít fabricated, biased, and glamorized by the drug manufacture themselves, they really should research it on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Yes, but they're not forcing the drugs on people. In addition, as I have stated, the sorts of drugs that are commonly advertised are not things people will WANT to abuse. Nor can you get, say, over-active bowel drugs, or high blood pressure medications, or even osteoperosis meds (Those are VERY commonly advertised) without tests being done. =) Thus, if you dn't really need the drug, the test will show it, and you will not be given the medication.
Not forcing, yes, but thatís with every advertisement out there. The point of them is to persuade you to go out and by the product, even if you originally thought youíd never need or want it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
And to get a prescription drug, you need to go to the doctor, and they WILL check before prescribing it... So what's the problem? It raised your awareness of the conditoin, and got you to get tested for it, but if you don't need the med, you don't get it.
It gets people to desire the drug. Thatís the big point, whether or not they actually get it. And these types of drugs shouldnít be commodities, they should be taken if there is a good cause for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Most of those meds have conditions that ARE tested for, either through blood tests, or other means. High blood pressure, for example, or osteoperosis (Bone density tests) can indeed be done. =) Thus, you won't get the med if you don't need it, and often only if other, less strong things don't work first.
And if at first you fail, try again? Whatís to stop people from trying again and again to go to different doctors until they get this glamorized drug thatís been advertised on television? Not funny, thatís a serious problem, and thatís misinformation at hand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
The sorts of drugs advertised, as seen in my examples, are NOT the sort that are easily abusable. Who wants to get themselves given an unneeded perscription for a medication that makes them sick, dizzy, or even cough up blood? People abuse drugs for a few reasons, the main one often being to feel good. Coughing up blood does not feel good. ^_~ Nor do you want to take, say, a high blood pressure med if you don't have high blood pressure. When it worked, dropping your bp, you would have all the unpleasantness that comes from having too LOW blood pressure- definitely an encouragement to not continue taking the drug.
But hey, there are people out there who arenít smart enough to know that. These are people who donít consider the risk and are easily persuaded by the misinformation on what they see on television.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Indeed, addiction is unlikely from the sorts of drugs advertised.
But the advertisement may in fact be the first step that leads to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
However, so is the idea of people who 'think' they need the drug. If they aren't already taking an OTC, why would they think they need the prescrip drug? Even if they do, they MUST go to a doctor to get it, and if the doctor is doing his job of examining a patient before diagnosing them, it will not be an issue. =) Finally, even if they are given the drug, they will realize when they take it that they should stop. The side effects alone will encourage them...
Exactly, so why should it even be advertised in the first place? Let the doctor decide if the information these drug companies is really true or not and see past all the glamorization of the product. Most of the public doesnít have the medical knowledge to make those desertions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
And if they don't, the effect the meds have on someone who doesn't need them, will. Look at some of those drugs. You take it when you don't need it, and it will be very unpleasant, teaching you to stop taking it... Or, they won't harm you at all. Milder calcium/osteoperosis things, for example, are probably not gonna kill you. Extra calcium, unless you are overdosing on the med (Which is a problem even IF you do need it) is not really bad for you. Most people don't ingest enough calcium, and could use the extra. Thus Actonel, Boniva, and etc will not cause many problems for people who take it without needing it.
Not every drug is like that though. Consider the fact that there are plenty out there that can cause harm that the general public isnít aware about, that a doctor would know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Thus, these commonly-advertised drugs are not likely to be prescribed by mistake, even if someone pressures a doctor. Tests can be run to see if they are needed or not. And, finally, someone who takes an unneeded one will either stop from the effect it'll have on someone who doesn't need it, or in the case of calcium supplements and lunesta, not be harmed by taking it uneccesarily. I feel this is grounds to rule that the numerous benefits outweigh those little setbacks.
Research on the actual drug itself is way more important than the glamorized crap that is shown on television and magazines. The problem is there are many people who just see the advertisement, and donít get the full story. However, if meds werenít so openly advertised all over the place, they would take an investigative stance on researching the drug that sounds new to them than believe all the junk they see on television.

Letís face it, Lunesta is a pill, not a freaking butterfly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Brand familiarity. Comfort. Knowing what's wrong with them can be fixed.
They could get the information they need from research, and that would be far better than the ad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Some people distrust meds. Seeing it regularly gets them used to it. Have you seen the stats of how many people get prescribed meds, and then don't take them? Then they wonder why they get worse. People need to take their needed meds.
Thatís their own fault. But thereís no point in pursuing ďmiracleĒ and glamorized drugs that were seen on television. Too many times, these ads are shooting for that goal. It doesnít bother them if people are taking it wrongfully, thatís their own risk theyíre making profit from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Second, if you don't have a common disease, you might not think there's a cure. Or, you might be a little worried, that you might be the only one with it, or just otherwise cautious about going to a doctor. Seeing these may help someone realize there's a treatment, and that they're not alone. Also, insurance companies don't cover every drug there is... Sometimes they don't even cover generics instead of brand names. Even if it only effects insurance, that saves people money, thus making it good.
If you have an uncommon disease, look it up. Google is clicks away, and it could lead to articles far more informing than a fabricated ad. With research, you get the whole story, not just the story the drug companies want you to hear through an advertisement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
That's why only doctors can give those drugs, and it could be argued that people don't just take OTCs on a whim, either... Most people, anyway.
Most people donít, right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Right.
Most doctors are smarter, but what if they miss one medicine?
Or, in the case of Lunesta... What if you just go to your doctor for a checkup, have issues sleeping, and ask them for something to help? They're not a sleep specialist, so having knowledge of your own is good.
Because while youíre thinking of the stupid ad you saw with its half-truths, the doctor will be telling you something different. Because taking the correct meds are important, its better if you hear the doctorís side of the drug than the junk on television. Thatís misinformation that could have been prevented with the removal of fabricated advertisements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Finally, you should take allergies into account. People are allergic to the damnedest things. ^^; Some people are even allergic to forms of penicillin, or other important drugs... Which is why they NEED drug info! Then, if they know they react to something in the drug, or know that someone in their distant family has and they don't wanna risk it (Doctors do check your medical history, but things have slipped by before. Also, they don't check distant family records... But if your, say, aunt's family are all deathly allergic to something, you'll want to avoid that thing just in case!)....
Youíre right, they do need the info! But it would be better to get it from a third party objective standpoint than to get the junk from the ad. If I have allergies, Iíd research the information from someone besides the drug company looking to get rich. Once the research has been found and the doctor consulted and at last that advertised drug was recommended after all, only then would I take it. But if youíre going solely off of the messages from the ad and the unrealistic ďmagicalĒ effects seen on TV (Lunesta butterfly for example), youíre getting a crappy message that isnít telling the full story when you think it might be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Well, if they won't hand out prescriptions in a haphazard way, what's the problem with ads? Clearly, it doesn't give the drugs a way to look more abusable, it doesn't let people obtain them any more easily, and it does let them know more about the product and the condition it treats.
The ads are good at making drugs look like a cure-all solution to their problems. No, it doesnít make them look attractive for abuse purposes, but will the ad ever show the side-effects taking place? Heck no, it would draw attention away from the drug.

Itís better to get real medical advice from physicians and trustworthy research, not from ads with magical butterflies that put people to sleep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Tests can be run to check if they have the conditions that many advertised prescription drugs treat.
Also, check scripts of common ads. They're not saying "You have this", or even implying it. They simply explain the symptoms of the condition, their drug and how it helps, include a catchy slogan (Memorable, but I doubt a good slogan will make you think you desparately need the drug), and then show a cute ad to try to make you think their drug's the best for that particular thing. The fact remains, however, that doctors can and should be testing for a condition before giving you any medicine, so ads don't cause a problem.
No, but theyíre a poor excuse for real information that too many people rely off of, and thatís the real problem. And they often present the viewer with the drug as if they had the problem. Some people could take that the wrong way.
__________________

  #43  
Old 06-28-2007, 12:18 AM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

(Ran out of room)

Neo Pikachu
Swarm
AGAINST


Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
It didn't mention bad things occuring. It simply said that over 50% of people had 'improved communicatoin' after seeing the ad.
Many others could very well have had the same level of communication. I see no stats on how many had worsened communication coming from you to refute that, either.
The ad might have brought them together, but that doesnít mean anything. A good doctor wouldnít need to have his patients exposed to ads all the time to diagnose treatments for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Also, there were other good effects. The other fourty-something percent could have been positively effected, but in a different way. For example, of all the people, 53% had that better talk... But 42% said the patient was more aware (And thus presumably more comfortable and knowledgable with/about) drugs. That could have been people not included in the 53%, after all.
Thereís a difference between knowing the name of the drug and knowing what the drug does. That chart doesnít say exactly how much these patients knew about the drug, or the discrepancies between one patient to the next.

Knowing what the drug is way more important, and the best information comes from research, not ads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Looking at all the good things on that chart, I see that people had to have multiple good effects, in fact, 'cause if you add all the benefits up, they go to over 100%. This leaves several possibilities...
1. Only a few had an improved experience (min of 53%). However, they had multiple good effects come from drug ads.
2. All of them have an improved experience, and some of them had more than one good effect.
#1 sounds far more likely than #2. And second, who exactly did they poll?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Alright. Go back and add proof to the things I pointed out in this and the last post, 'cause your links don't actually, reliably, support some of what you've said.
FDA not doing their job
Drug ads NOT providing all the important information
More FDA failure
Again, ads arenít giving the right information
Drugs being used by people who donít need them.

That enough now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Any doctor worth his salt will test for the condition before giving the drug.
Problem solved.
And since you already said abuse isn't usually teh issue... What's left to be a 'bad' thing about ads?
Misinformation, untrue fantasies behind the drugs, people using them who are totally healthy and donít need them, lack of knowledge behind the drug and/or consumers getting the wrong idea about the drug from the ad as opposed to seeking professional medical research, why yes, quite a few bad things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Nope. =) Several do, in fact. Not even including the ones taken off the market, the most common ones can cause problems. Aspirin can cause reyes syndrome and blindness, etc. This is most common in kids, but can happen in adults, too. Also, tylenol causes liver damage, and that is OTC, and from proper use. Sure, if you only use tylenol occaisonally, it won't harm you... But if someone takes it every month, even just once, for their period, they could get nasty liver issues. And from person to person, teh amount they can tolerate differs.
Thatís unrelated to the advertisements though. Thatís OTC drugs needing more regulation and research to prevent those problems from happening in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
OTC drugs, in fact, can cause prescription drugs to be dangerous. Codeine mixed with tylenol, for example. The codeine, aside from being potentially addictive (And if you have a chronic pain condition, you're gonna be taking it permanently anyway to control that), isn't that dangerous. The tylenol in it, however, causes liver damage.
Thatís why people would need to inform their doctor about other drugs they are taking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
But the point remains... Does advertising cause the misuse? I don't think it does.
Read the links above. It does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
No, your point is simply not valid. ;) If people will ALWAYS misuse things, then the ad is not at fault, 'cause not-advertised things are misused as well.
The ad is at fault for other reasons on top of that. Misuse is a pretty broad definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Also, your proof does not actually prove what you claims it does... Try again. ^_^
The links above support my entire argument Iíve been stating for my last few posts.

And knock it off with the smilies, its annoying and immature for a debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Tests. Doctors will not prescribe something if the test shows you don't have the condition... Unless they're corrupt, and that is then from abuse/personal misconduct, not from ads. =)
Ads will make people think the drug is a wonder drug, cures their problem, and that its perfect for them if they donít think twice to research it before taking some companyís opinion.

Research will often tell you all the nasty little details drug companies are quick to leave out (thank you FDA for not catching it) and give you the truth thatís needed before the drugs can be taken.




Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Also wrong, OTC drugs can be just as dangerous. And some drug instructions are simple, for prescription stuff.

I have in front of me a couple bottles of prescription meds, in fact. None of them have complex instructions.

Codeine w/ tylenol:
Take 1 to 2 tablespoonful
Every 4 hours as needed
for pain

Fexofenadine:
Take one tablet by mouth every day

Tussafed-LA caplet:
Take one tablet Twice daily

Dura-vent/DA tablet:
Take 1 tablet at bedtime


Do those look 'complicated' to you? ^^: I think they're pretty simply.
I personally know cases where prescription drugs had changed dosages, and cases vary from person to person. Not everyone has the same level of the ailment, some people may have a higher cholesterol than others, and would require a different dosage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Many prescription meds are done by weight, just like OTC things such as tylenol. You know.. "Age this-this, weight this-this, one pill. Age this-this, weight this-this, 2 pills." And so on. Or, they can do them in liquid. IE, '50 pounds or less= 1 teaspoon. 51-100 pounds= 2 teaspoon.'

And so on.
The weight and the count may be the same, but the problem the person is having from another person are very likely to be different, and may require different levels of dosage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
That's why doctors run tests to see if you actually have hte conditions the drug treats, unless they are dumb as dirt... Which is then medical malpractice or human error/stupidity, not the fault of an ad.
The ad misinforms the public, and thatís the major problem, making people think they know the drug when really they donít.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Really?
I don't think someone can make you think you have osteperosis, unless they can falsify bone density tests.
I don't think someone can make you think you are incontinent, unless they can someone mind-control your bladder.
I don't think someone can make you think you have ED, either... And I think your spouse/lover/etc could easily correct you on that one. ;)
Youíd be surprised at how stubborn some people can be. And getting misinformed about the drug and thinking they need it despite what their doctor is trying to tell them is a problem.

Plus, a person could have a problem, but the prescription drug that was flashed in their face may not be right for them. And second, they might not know what theyíre really getting into without research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Nutmeg is sold in tiny bottles. There's a reason for this...

7 nuts is enough to cause severe hallucinations. Even less than that can cause other harmful effects. That's like eating 7 peanuts. People could do it without even thinking.

Nutmeg is SMALL. A 'very large' quantity, also known as 7 nuts, takes up very little space. Most people wouldn't think twice about eating 7 nuts of that size. Here's a picture:

http://www.truthtree.com/images/nutmeg_family.jpg
That's nutmeg nuts on and around a normal sized spoon. See how small they are? You can fit probably 5 or more in your mouth AT ONCE. Thus, I believe it is reasonably arguable that things that aren't even restricted OR medicines can be just as dangerous as prescription medicines. =)

Yet just an normal sized adult dose of 4 little tablets of tylenol can damage a child's liver... Just as it takes only 7 minute nutmeg nuts (if that) to be dangerous. You go past 9, and you're looking at permanent damage.
If youíre doing that with nutmeg, then you obviously arenít bright and donít know what its used for. Under normal uses, its fine. Trust me, thereís a lot of things that can harm people if theyíre going to be stupid about using it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Doctors are only human. They make mistakes. Knowledge IS power... And it's good for people to have that, along with a 'safeguard' in case a doctor messes up. It HAS been known to happen. Even if the doctor does well, how does it hurt for the patient to have a further knowledge of how what they've been prescribed will work?
The best safeguard is research, not an advertisement that glamorizes the drug and leaves the bad stuff out, the stuff someone should be aware of.

Advertisements are by no means good substitutes for research. Get the information from people who know the truth behind the drugs, not from TV garbage that was created by the people who just want to get rich.
__________________

  #44  
Old 06-28-2007, 12:30 AM
Finch's Avatar
Finch Offline
Inazuma
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 5,201
Send a message via Skype™ to Finch
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

You're just picking flies, now. Well, have it your way, here's my breakdown of what you had to say for yourself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK
They made a mistake at first. Now, yes, they did eventually withhold information... But they're now looking at getting their asses sued off for it. Thus, there are indeed consequences. In fact, they were taken off the market. This is not common, and is fixed as soon as it is spotted when it does occur.
Please, don't be so absurd. When dealing with the lives of patients, there's no room for error. If it does in fact occur, the industry has already failed. People die. That's not something which can be fixed retrospectively. Prevention can only happen through a ban on the public advertisement of prescription drugs, or at least the education of the public to what they're really buying into. Better yet, let's abolish all prescription medication! It'd be the lesser of two evils, I fear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFK
Also, your source mentions a 1998 issue. It has since then been resolved. xD So I fail to see the relevance. Also, that was media speculation, not proof... So IF it even existed... It would still be in the past.
It's charming that you trust the FDA and manufacturers so much that you'll believe everything they tell you now. They lied before, they could just as easily lie again. Any source witholding dangerously sensitive information is not to be trusted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFK
Nope. =) It wasn't the advertising that killed them. It was the fact that companies illegaly hid information about their drugs... Even from the doctors. It's not like the ads neglected the info but doctors were told, 'cause the doctors then could not have prescribed the med in good conscience. The fact of the matter is, their lying caused it, not the ads.
You're missing the point. The lying was resultant of the attitude brought on by the need for the companies to appeal to the market. They're in competition, more so now that direct-to-consumer advertising has become legal (it happened in the last 10 years, so I'd call that recent.) The need to withold information has become greater for the companies, as has the risk to patients.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFK
Well, aside from improved communication, recognition and treatment of diseases and severe conditions, a decrease in allergic shock due to the patient knowing what's in what they are taking, furthered knowledge about medicines and side effects, brand familiarity, and a greater comfort level with actually taking neccesary meds... Not much, I guess.
You're nit-picking, Firefly. That's something completely different. We're talking here about direct-to-consumer advertising, which has no positive bearing on the ability of a doctor to prescribe the correct medication. Rather, it promotes over-medication. With regards to your "allergic shock" statement, no bottle comes without a label. Not legally, anyway. They'd know what's in it, and the doctor would know about their allergies anyway through their records. It's what they're paid to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFK
Again, tests can often show if you have the problems related to advertised medicines.
Again, hindsight is glorious, but it's useless in such a dangerous situation.

"In the test, we found you died of a heart attack... Which... Oh yeah! Happens sometimes. Sorry, we forgot that. Better luck next time!"
__________________
  #45  
Old 06-28-2007, 01:04 AM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

FireflyK
Syndicate
For




Quote:
Watch a drug ad sometime. See how much time they glamorize the benefits, and just make a very quick blurb about the side effects. To you the consumer, the benefits are going to look far more appealing, as thatís what the ad is supposed to do.
Glamourise?
They're not telling you it'll make you younger, more attractive, or even give you a temporary high.
How does one 'glamourise' an osteoperosis drug? o.0; I'd be very interested to see how that works.

You have an odd concept of glamorous. ^_~


Quote:
If patients want real information about the drug that isnít fabricated, biased, and glamorized by the drug manufacture themselves, they really should research it on their own.
Exactly.
However, more-common side effects must be mentioned, so it is a start. It gives them an awareness of the drug- from there, the ball's in their court. They must look for further info. However, it's a start...

Even if it is a half truth, I seem to recall that you argued that Wikipedia, despite the half truths, was a useful fighting point... So wouldn't these ads, despite a few half-truths, also be a good place to begin to learn? ;) At least then they'll know that a drug for their medical condition exists.


Quote:
Not forcing, yes, but thatís with every advertisement out there. The point of them is to persuade you to go out and by the product, even if you originally thought youíd never need or want it.
True.
However, you can't just go buy a prescription medication.. So it isn't making them go out and get it.
Also, not all ads are effective. For example, I don't know very many teenagers who want a tricycle, or many elderly people who want a 'NOW' cd.
Thus, people who don't have a condition similiar to what the drug cures, won't want the drug... People want something to cure them. How many people with allergies go in and demand, say, Enbrel?
Very few, because it does not help allergies. Ads or no ads, people want what will work for them, and they have the sense to distinguish that. For those who don't, there are doctors, to test them and see what really needs treatment.



Quote:
It gets people to desire the drug.
IF they have a condition they think it will help with. Otherwise, no, it won't do that. Thus, it is not a bad thing, and can in some cases be good.
Do you have a craving to go be prescribed Boniva every time you see an ad for it? I highly doubt it.
People are not machines. We have enough common sense to want things we think we will enjoy, OR that will help us. Someone with a bladder issue will not be 'fooled' by an ad into demanding allegra, because allegra does not help with bladder problems.


Quote:
Thatís the big point, whether or not they actually get it. And these types of drugs shouldnít be commodities, they should be taken if there is a good cause for it.
The stupidity of a few should not get the ads taken off the air. Many people can be helped by them. If there's really any people dumb enough to madly desire anything they happen to see on TV... Well.. That's a whole 'nother problem.

Quote:
And if at first you fail, try again? Whatís to stop people from trying again and again to go to different doctors until they get this glamorized drug thatís been advertised on television?
The fact that a patient who has a habit of doing that will be suspected of having munchausen, or hypochondria, or wanting to get drugs to illegally sell to others?
Doctors are not idiots. They aren't gonna prescribe a drug without running tests. You do, after all, need to know what dosage is appropriate to fight the severity of their condition, and you must test a patient to do that. No doctor in their right mind will simply hand out pills... And should they, that's not the fault of the ad, that is malpractice. That is human error.

Quote:
Not funny, thatís a serious problem, and thatís misinformation at hand.
I'd find it funny that a doctor that idiotic made it through med school.
If you don't run tests to see what's wrong and how much is needed to cure it, of a certain drug, then you are not fit to be a doctor... But how do ads cause malpractice, stupidity, or just-plain-carelessness?


Quote:
But hey, there are people out there who arenít smart enough to know that. These are people who donít consider the risk and are easily persuaded by the misinformation on what they see on television.
Which is why we have doctors, to make sure you're only given the meds you need.
Also, I don't think anyone is /that/ stupid. If you have allergies, you don't ask for a high blood pressure medicine, no matter how appealing the ad is (And I must say, they aren't that terribly appealing anyway).

Even if a doctor commits malpractice, prescribing a drug without testing you first... You will LEARN from taking it to stop. As I said, if you start to feel really bad/worse after you start taking a medicine... Even if they only think it's a side effect, not 'cause it is the wrong drug, people will speak up. They will stop taking it, and go to the doctor to try something else.


Quote:
But the advertisement may in fact be the first step that leads to it.
Wrong, because the sorts of things advertised are not abusable, nor do they appear fun to abuse. Unless you'd like to go back to my earlier list, and point out how osteoperosis, blood pressure, and bowel problem medicines are 'glamorous' or seem fun to take... ^_~ Sorry, I'm not seeing it. If you abused 'em, you'd get stronger bones, messed up blood pressure, or have your bladder messed with. Incontinence is not most people's ideas of 'fun'. I'm not going to get into the fetsh potential there, either, thanks.

Quote:
Exactly, so why should it even be advertised in the first place?
1. Spreading knowledge
2. Getting them comfortable with the idea of taking a drug
3. Perhaps letting them know someone else out there has their condition, too
4. Getting them to dare to go see a doctor, once they know their condition can be cured... Especially if the OTC isn't working enough for them.

Honestly, the drugs are not glamorized. There's no way TO glamorise some of that stuff. Anti-constipation and prostrate drugs are important, but they're hardly a topic of conversation. You'll see people bragging about not-advertised drugs, like how they wrangled morphine or a pain killer from their doctor and it feels sooo good, etc etc etc. You will not, however, hear a kid bragging about getting a doctor to prescribe a prostrate inflammation drug to them.

Quote:
Let the doctor decide if the information these drug companies is really true or not and see past all the glamorization of the product. Most of the public doesnít have the medical knowledge to make those desertions.
And the public aren't the ones who can prescribe drugs... The doctors, who should do the research, are.
So what's your point? xD


Quote:
Not every drug is like that though. Consider the fact that there are plenty out there that can cause harm that the general public isnít aware about, that a doctor would know.
Hey, feel free to... Y'know... Actually list some?
I listed the ones commonly seen around here, and the ones, as per an EMT who was a doctor before retiring, that are advertised excessively and pointlessly. And they don't seem dangerous to me, except 1. 1 out of many.... Not really that bad. And that one is highly unlikely to be mis-given.

Quote:
Research on the actual drug itself is way more important than the glamorized crap that is shown on television and magazines.
Still waiting for an explanation on how most of those ads are glamorous.

Quote:
The problem is there are many people who just see the advertisement, and donít get the full story.
And when they go to their doctor, it is her/his job to give them the rest of the info... SO what's the problem?
Ads would run too long if they told everything, and with prescription meds, it is the doctor's job to tell the whole story, anyway. Not the TV's.

Quote:
However, if meds werenít so openly advertised all over the place, they would take an investigative stance on researching the drug that sounds new to them than believe all the junk they see on television.
Highly unlikely. =) And you have no proof, unsurprisingly, for this bizarre assumption.


Quote:
Letís face it, Lunesta is a pill, not a freaking butterfly.
So?
Do you think the fact that their ad includes a butterfly will somehow make the drug irresistable?
The point of the butterfly is brandname familiarity. If you are an insomniac getting meds, they want you to remember their name. That's all. You can't get it without a doctor, so no harm done... And I think people can reliably self-diagnose an inability to sleep, anyway. ^_~ Sure, some things a doctor's expertise is needed for... But if you can't tell if you take a long time to sleep, or not... You have issues.

In addition, keep in mind that sleep related issues like this are different frm the other meds listed, which is why I mentioned it separately. There are tests for the other conditions. This one, however- insomnia- involves questioning to determine treatment. The doctor asks questions, and you give answers. If a doctor feels like a person's own description of sleepless symptoms is sufficient to merit sleep medication... Well, clearly that's one rare sort of med that might not need such careful monitoring, right? If it was serious, they'd take the time/money to do tests on seratonin and other things that effect sleep. Thus, it is unlikely that the medicine is dangerous if taken when unneeded... Otherwise, even just to avoid malpractice suits if something happened, doctors would take further practices.

As to the other meds, they aren't often glamorous, and they can be tested for. The lack of glamour makes 'em unlikely to be abused, and a test by a proper doctor will stop them from being given by mistake to someone who doesn't need them.


Quote:
They could get the information they need from research, and that would be far better than the ad.
Brand familiarity is not 'information'.
It is knowing something, and hearing about it, enough that it sticks in your head. For example, if I mention batteries, many people think of the energizer bunny. Thus, if they need batteries, and don't know which brands are reliable... They are more likely to get those, because they've seen the ads a lot, and will thus attach a positive denotation to the brand the Bunny represents.

This is much the same.
Patients who are skittish about trying drugs are greatly helped by continued exposure to ads about them. It will get them used to seeing and hearing about these drugs on a regular basis.

Who's gonna go research lots of drugs if they don't have a medical condition occuring already? Also, the familiarity process takes a long time... The occaisonal bout of research, even if they happen to look up a drug they mayone day need, won't be enough. (TV ads are often for popular drugs, however, not just random ones, increasing the chances that the drugs you'll need at one point will be in an ad... The chances aren't great still, but they are better than if you just do bits of research on any med!)


Quote:
Thatís their own fault. But thereís no point in pursuing ďmiracleĒ and glamorized drugs that were seen on television.
Again, I hardly think many of these drugs are glamorized. People don't ooh and ahhh over bp, osteoperosis, and etc drugs.

Quote:
Too many times, these ads are shooting for that goal. It doesnít bother them if people are taking it wrongfully, thatís their own risk theyíre making profit from.
If the doctors can't even correctly diagnose a person, that's malpractice, and hardly the fault of the companies, unless they intentionally and maliciously fooled the doctors. I don't see Boniva, for example, claiming to instantly cure cancer... So I don't think the companies are at fault. ^_~


Quote:
If you have an uncommon disease, look it up.
How do you know what the disease is?
If you have symptoms but don't know what they are... How will you find out, unless you stumble upon an ad listing the same, DISTINCT, symptoms? (Something that makes a certain sort of recognizable rash, for example, would be pretty noticable, especially with a set of other symptoms not commonly seem together).

You may think this is uncommon, but actually finding the right disease from a plethora of info online is not common, either. Every little bit helps- if we're gonna be watching something between tv shows, why not an ad for a medicine we might eventually need, instead of an ad for, say, hershey's chocolate?


Quote:
Google is clicks away, and it could lead to articles far more informing than a fabricated ad. With research, you get the whole story, not just the story the drug companies want you to hear through an advertisement.
It is your doctor's job to give you all the info.


Quote:
Most people donít, right.
And the few who do can be prevented from getting prescription drugs by doctors... But will abuse OTC ones to their heart's content.


Quote:
Because while youíre thinking of the stupid ad you saw with its half-truths, the doctor will be telling you something different.
Ads may not tell everything, but rarely do they include lies or misinformation. You should be hearing a confirmation, and extra info, from your doctor, about the drug. If not, go sue the company, and like Vioxx, they'll likely get pulled from the market and sued. =) A lack of ethics is at fault there, not the actual ads.

Quote:
Because taking the correct meds are important, its better if you hear the doctorís side of the drug than the junk on television.
And you do, when you go to the doctor's office.
You seem to have a condescending view of things... Believing that people can't know enough to even listen to their own doctor. Why go to someone you don't trust?
If you would have the common sense to go to your doctor, you ought to at least assume the same level of intelligence in others...

Quote:
Thatís misinformation that could have been prevented with the removal of fabricated advertisements.
So your problem is with things you think are lies in ads, not the ads themselves? Doesn't that mean you are FOR the ads, but just want a higher standard for drug companies?
Also, I'd like to see some untruths mentioned. Where's the examples and proof?


Quote:
Youíre right, they do need the info! But it would be better to get it from a third party objective standpoint than to get the junk from the ad. If I have allergies, Iíd research the information from someone besides the drug company looking to get rich.
That would be your doctor. =) Ads are not meant to be your sole source of info, obviously. However, they aren't bad just because they don't cover every single fact.

Quote:
Once the research has been found and the doctor consulted and at last that advertised drug was recommended after all, only then would I take it.
And most people would have the same common sense... SO what's the problem?
You go to the doctor, you see if you have the condition, you ask 'em about the med, you see what the research and the doctor says, you get the medication, and life goes on.
What's the problem with ads, then? That's what got you to go to the doctor's in the first place.

Quote:
But if youíre going solely off of the messages from the ad and the unrealistic ďmagicalĒ effects seen on TV (Lunesta butterfly for example), youíre getting a crappy message that isnít telling the full story when you think it might be.
If a person is going solely off a short ad, they need drugs for mental retardation.
Again, basic rule of thumb- don't assume that no one else has any common sense!
If you are intelligent enough to know this, presume that most others are until proven otherwise. It is illogical to elevate yourself above everyone else, and act like they are mentally deficient idiots. People don't spot a drug ad and suddenly feel like they absolutely must, must have the drug. But they may decide to research it further, which is a desirable effect.


Quote:
The ads are good at making drugs look like a cure-all solution to their problems.
Really?
Last I checked, they only advertise the purpose they are made for.
I don't see Enbrel claiming to cure cancer, or Boniva claiming to help allergies...
I see ads detailing the risks of a drug, and what it is meant to help/cure.
I think you are exaggerating a lot.

Quote:
No, it doesnít make them look attractive for abuse purposes
Okay. That rules out the possibility of abuse. The only other possible negative I've seen argued, compared to a huge amount of positives, is that the poor people will be 'confused' into thinking they need the drug.
I'm sorry, but that is unrealistic and egotistcal. People are not that stupid. They have enough common sense to think like you did- To research further, now that they've heard of the drug from an ad.

Quote:
but will the ad ever show the side-effects taking place?
It lists them. The box lists them. Mostly, their sites list them, as is ordered by law at least in the US, one of only 2 places where that form of direct advertising is allowed.
Finally, your doctor should detail them, as is his job.

Quote:
Heck no, it would draw attention away from the drug.
Heck no, it takes up more time to show all the possible effects. Instead, they show what the drug is SUPPOSED to do- the desired effect- then simply list or recite the side effects.


Quote:
Itís better to get real medical advice from physicians and trustworthy research, not from ads with magical butterflies that put people to sleep.
Sure. But how do you know to ask your doctor about a drug, if you don't know the drug exists?
That's part of what ads are good for.


No, but theyíre a poor excuse for real information that too many people rely off of, and thatís the real problem. And they often present the viewer with the drug as if they had the problem. Some people could take that the wrong way.[/QUOTE]
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com