It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: AMA Won't Support Ban On Drug Ads

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Despite the concerns voiced by some doctors about the effectiveness of heavy marketing of drugs on people who may not need them, the American Medical Association has decided on Tuesday to not support a ban on the advertising of prescription medication. Concern over the, "ask your doctor, " portions of these ads has lead some doctors to call for ad banning, due to people seeking drugs based on isolated or unrelated experiences. The AMA has decided to not support the ban, citing potential free speech infringements.
 



www.washingtonpost.com
But others said a ban would violate drug makers' free-speech rights and argued that ads have helped increase awareness of certain ailments and reduced the stigma of mental illness and other disorders.

Supporters thought they had a good chance of succeeding this year because of recent concerns about the heart risks of arthritis drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex, and suspicions that Prozac and related antidepressants can lead to suicidal impulses in youngsters.

Also Tuesday, the AMA adopted a report declaring that these antidepressants have benefits and should remain available to youngsters who need them


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Have you ever seen any of these commercials? They're filled with every symptom in the book and they include vague references, such as questioning the health of an individual if they ever feel down, or encounter any kind of anxiety. The truth is, the ads are very misleading and when factored along side with the amount of money that has gone into the marketing aspects of these drugs, much less the amount of money that has gone into the production, a case could be made that they are intentionally made to take advantage of people who don't know the difference between normal mood fluctuations and true problems.

A company makes a product to sell it. Pharmaceuticals aren't light products, however. Over time, they can have a real effect on the chemistry of an individual and become an important factor in the decision making process of the individual. Deciding to undergo prescription therapy isn't and shouldn't be a decision made lightly, an idea that is betrayed by the seeming faddish response our society has had to drugs like Prozac and Zoloft.

I believe that the medicinal trends in this country is one of the biggest problems we face, as nearly everyone is on something. We even have a "New Freedom Commission for Mental Health," recently established under the Bush Administration that insists we need to screen school children for mental disorder and medicate them!!! How can you make an assertion towards the validity of an individual before full genetic expression has taken place? Likewise, how can you expect a parent to raise a child when they are in the apathetic stupor of their comedown in between prescriptions?

Our country encourages ignorance......and gets rich off it.


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NEWS: Prescription Drug Marketing Misleads Public
Drug Makers to profit from Bush sceme to label kids mentally ill

[edit on 21-6-2005 by MemoryShock]




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
.
I think there should be truth in advertising.

I don't like limiting free speech, even commercial, as long as it is not knowingly dishonest.

What will kick in is more intelligent people, especially after the many recent questions about drug safety, will be much, much more skeptical about these 'everyone is euphoric' drugs ads like celebrex, etc.

Intelligent people learn quickly that government protection is an oxymoron.

The FDA is majority funded by private interests. How much of an idiot would you have to be to expect them to have the public and not industry's interests at heart? What is crazy, is that this privately funded bureaucracy is given governmental powers of approval. But I guess the rest of government officials are bought, installed and manipulated by corporate money, so why should the FDA be any different?
.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Snake oil is easy to come by now-a-days. Just go to the doc and tell him you feel depressed that your son died and they will give you anti-depressants.

I sure am glad that modern pharmacueticals didn't invent something that works as well as aspirin or we would pay 6.00 for a jar of 20 of them.

I am hoping karma will take care of all the people involved in these schemes to make money in a future life - or maybe karma is catching up to us and this is a payback for all our past deeds?? Only Jesus knows, I guess.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   


Our country encourages ignorance......and gets rich off it.


This should become the new slogan for the United States of America. That would be truth in advertising.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Free speech my ....

Most of the members of the AMA are stockholders in the pharmacutical companys.

Just more evidence of wide spread corruption in coroprate America.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Why should they want to support the ban?
Heck, remember many doctor's as well as many medical facilities (especially the teaching hospitals) receive grants and other monetary and collateral response.
What do you think would happen if suddenly the doctors started to support the ban. Where would they get the monies and other support that they presently receive from the drug companies?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
I think there should be truth in advertising.

I don't like limiting free speech, even commercial, as long as it is not knowingly dishonest.


I agree that there is a catch-22 here, and furthermore, the target of these ads are really people who don't know any better. What does that tell you?

But I disagree that they aren't knowingly dishonest. Not that any blatantly false ideas are being broadcast, but the whole point of a commercial is to grab the mood of the viewer. And the biggest problem is that these commercials are imploring uneducated people to make decisions about their health by appealing to the emotional reasonings.....why, yes, of course everyone has felt down at some point in the past 2 weeks. The marketers just have a higher level of education......so the dishonesty isn't as apparent.

And maybe that is where the soluiton lies, people need to be more aware of their health and the reasons why they tick. I believe a recent study stated that 25% of Americans have some kind of mental disorder.....and mood swings can sometimes lead to a misdiagnosis. I don't buy that all of a sudden, at this point in our history, one quarter of our population has some kind of genetic or chemical imbalance.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
those liars!!!!

Im sorry but the Constitution of the USA does not garuntee you can make pill commercials all you want...hell half the commercials dont even mention any disease at all!!!! spreading awareness my a$$!!!

why arent Cigerette commercials allowed on TV????
Because Cigs are harmful to your health
Just like these pills are

they are greedy evil liars

i think all of them should go to jail forever !!
murderers they are! and they get paid big $$ for killing americans too!

the REAL Axis of EVIL::
Pharmacutical Corps
Oil Corps
Food Corps

they work real hard every day to undermine america, destroy the constitution, and get everyone addicted to their products

off with their heads!!



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by slank
I think there should be truth in advertising.

I don't like limiting free speech, even commercial, as long as it is not knowingly dishonest.


But I disagree that they aren't knowingly dishonest. Not that any blatantly false ideas are being broadcast, but the whole point of a commercial is to grab the mood of the viewer.


I tend to disagree about the not knowingly being dishonest. How about the fact that teens on antidepressents have a slightly higher suicide rate and the fact that the drug company knowingly suppressed the information?

And what about the number of ads that air that say "Ask your doctor about [fill in the blank]" without telling you what the drug is supposed to treat? Just shows a happy girl and her dog running in the field. Is it for allergies? what?

And as for free speech, I don't like restricting it. But, where is the line drawn? The example of cigarette ads and alcohol ads was made, but how about the fact that they won't play Saving Private Ryan because of language, but because of these commercials, I have to explain to a child what "erectile disfunction" is. Heck, let the kid learn/have sex before he has to worry about failure!



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Are You Bi-Polar?
Discover How To Recognize, Cope & Deal
With Your Bi-PolarBipolarSupporter.com


bipolar.about.com...

A background ad.........now tell me that isn't suggestive.

These are all over the place and they go so far as to assume in the next breath that you have the disease and they have all the answers.

And this is a lot less then the human interest stories that are commercialized all over the television.......




top topics



 
0

log in

join