Marketing Medicine

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm strongly sympathetic to the idea that these ads are just not very useful to people, in that they don't positively contribute to their health, and add just that little bit more stress onto the healthcare system. I can't help but think trying to forbid them is the wrong way to go though. Trying to restrict the flow of information feels like it has to be counter-productive and it certainly looks a lot like "ignorance is bliss", and I KNOW that it's just getting harder and more ineffective as time goes by.

[earthJoker]

Threat of legal action.

But how, I mean, it's just free speech.

[Aimless]

But how, I mean, it's just free speech.

What do you mean?

[Loki]

But how, I mean, it's just free speech.

Class-action lawsuits based on the information about side-effects not being readily available. We have a common law system; everything isn't legislated by law.

[earthJoker]

What do you mean?

I think Loki understood it correctly. The question I ask is, if you have to fear consequences from free speech, is it still free?

Class-action lawsuits based on the information about side-effects not being readily available. We have a common law system; everything isn't legislated by law.

I don't care under which law system the restriction is based on, be it civil, common or public. If you have to fear consequences from what you said (in your commercial), your free speech is limited.

Once you go down that road, it's not an ideological discussion anymore. The question is only than on what basis you restriction is, and how far you want to go.

[Loki]

The way I see it, this is more a case of respecting contracts. If you form a contract with someone under false pretenses, they have the right to compensation from you.

[earthJoker]

Isn't it the doctor who is doing the prescription? He is certainly informed enough.

[Loki]

I guess by advertising around the doctor's back, they're putting the onus on themselves.

[Illusions]

Isn't it the doctor who is doing the prescription? He is certainly informed enough.

A doctor is given as much information as the drug company publishes or that their knowledge about its mechanism of action, chemical composition, etc. which the drug company would also publish, allows them to figure out on their own.

[earthJoker]

I guess by advertising around the doctor's back, they're putting the onus on themselves.

That's interesting, as in my reading, there is never a contract between the company and the patient. Only between the doctor respectively the drug store and the patient. At least over here, those two are responsible to make the patient aware of any side effects. The producer is only responsible to inform the doctors.

[Ominous Gamer]

A doctor is given as much information as the drug company publishes or that their knowledge about its mechanism of action, chemical composition, etc. which the drug company would also publish, allows them to figure out on their own.

not all medical research is funded or published by a drug's manufacturer.

[GGT]

Isn't it the doctor who is doing the prescription? He is certainly informed enough.

Ah, that might be a myth, or conventional wisdom being challenged by our rapid Information Age...and something pharmaceutical companies were quick to exploit with their patient-directed marketing campaigns (?)

[Aimless]

not all medical research is funded or published by a drug's manufacturer.

Also, not all medical research conducted by a drug's manufacturer is published

Isn't it the doctor who is doing the prescription? He is certainly informed enough.

Sometimes he is, sometimes he isn't. He probably doesn't have enough time anyway

[earthJoker]

Sometimes he is, sometimes he isn't. He probably doesn't have enough time anyway

I meant informed enough in the legal term (to be able to make a contract) not in the medical term.