Hacker News Reader

Comment by hammock | Hacker News Reader

The irony of wanting to ban Rx drug ads because they are creepy, is that it was regulations that made them creepy to begin with. (You seem aware of this already)

There is an argument to be made for consumer advertising for a drug like Viagra. Without awareness that an effective treatment exists, patients with ED or another embarrassing condition are not likely to bring it up with their doctor on their own, thus resulting in unnecessary suffering.

Another argument is that for various reasons some patients are unlikely to seek a second opinion, even when one is warranted. Consumer advertising is a way to present alternative treatment options to a patient whose doctor will not.

View on HN

We don't have ads for this in Australia, and everyone knows about viagra. Ads for drugs aren't creepy, they're fucking crazy. When I watched hulu for a bit I was astonished by them fascinated. Terrified. The US is wild west capitalism

EDIT: And another thing: you guys don't even have affordable health care, so people see this shit they blatantly can't afford advertised at them relentlessly. That's why spam is so lucrative I guess: huge demand built for something virtually no-one can afford.

> they blatantly can't afford advertised at them relentlessly.

That's not true, because most people do have insurance. The major problem is that the costs are socialized by insurance, so people buy excessive healthcare because then can afford it (they aren't paying).

There are countries where few people have insurance. Health outcomes are poor.

There are other countries where everybody has insurance and the government negotiates medical prices. Japan, Germany, and France are three examples. They have much lower costs than the U.S. and the best health outcomes in the world, measured on criteria like death rates after diagnosis of major disease.

Source: Healing America by T.R. Reid.

Something else those countries have (to varying extent) is strong public transportation and an ancient and coherent food culture, which has helped them resist the epidemic of obesity and diabetes we are suffering in the US. Does your book address this?

Those sorts of things affect disease incidence rates but not "death rates after diagnosis of major disease."

And Japan, for example, has an aging population of heavy smokers.

Dude if you think medicine is TOO affordable in the US then you are seriously out of touch with everything. eg. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-s... the comparative cost of have asthma in the US even if you're insured, compared with having it in Australia or most of Europe or New Zealand is sky high. Antidepressants similarly - in Australia you can afford that shit if you're completely poor. Americans need crazy insurance that they get through work to cover it, and then they have to pay through the nose as well.

>The US is wild west capitalism

Yes, this is the true culture of America. Blind acceptance and worship of capitalism.

> Without awareness that an effective treatment exists, patients with ED or another embarrassing condition are not likely to bring it up with their doctor on their own, thus resulting in unnecessary suffering.

Research has found that 80% of over the counter and 60% of prescription drug ads are misleading or false.[1] ED mediations are one of the top offenders in false advertising in the study.

1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-finds-most-d...

Wow! That seems like a biased study. Would they have prefered the ad say "will help make your penis erect when you are appropriately aroused"?

One of the repeat offenders, said Faerber, were erectile dysfunction drugs. “The various drug companies phrase it differently, but they all play on the idea of being “ready” when the moment is right,” but Faerber said readiness is about more than a physical reaction, it’s an emotional state – especially where sex is concerned. “They implied more than a physiological response.”

What if you allow basically the same ad but disallow mention of any brand names - only the generic name or condition to be treated?

Then we have a tragedy of the commons, where Pfizer and Lilly (the makers of Viagra and Cialis respectively) will wait for the other to create generic ED ads that they will both benefit from.

The solution seems to be public awareness ad campaigns to remove the stigma surrounding talking to your GP about embarrassing conditions, while still outlawing the advertising of specific drugs.

Or they would, you know, work together for exactly this reason, like how dairy farmers supported Got Milk? together

"Got Milk?" was originally commissioned by the California Milk Processor Board, which is administered by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (i.e. the government) [1]. Also note that milk lacks much in the way of strong brand identity or distinguishing features, unlike Viagra and Cialis which are very different medications.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Got_Milk%3F

I'm not sure that's the tragedy of the commons.

Also, I imagine that the cost of making and running the commercial would be pretty trivial compared to the profits to be made from the sale of the product.

This is what we have in Australia. Vague ads talking about various diseases and advising you to talk to your doctor about your health problems.

"Nasal spray technology"

Honestly though, it's a good system. I can't actually tell you what brand that ad is for, but I do know that I can talk to my doctor about it if I have issues with PE!

Those ones are a huge scam incidentally. The drugs are old and relatively ineffective, but the advertising is to get people into clinics owned by the company which then funnel them to heart clinics for check ups before prescribing.

I believe in Canada you can talk about the condition, or you can talk about the drug, but you can't talk about both at the same time.

That's how it works in Oz. The drug companies tend to use their product packaging colors heavily in the ad to link the brand.

That's a confusing argument - how would drugs for a condition come to exist without the existence of a patient population?

Your point is well-taken for individuals who don't fall in epidemiological categories (a 20-something is less likely to be asked about sexual dysfunction than a 60 year-old). Still, questions about sexual function are standard medical history questions.

Education about the availability of drugs can be performed by disease foundations - indeed, disease foundations underwrite the most risky part of drug discovery, the basic research component. For more common disorders, hospitals, the CDC, the NIH and even Google are beginning to provide digestible information that highlight standard treatments. In our web era, the importance of TV advertising for disease education is likely less than it might have been in the 80s.

Advertisements are very different than public service announcements.

What about Komen? There's definitely a blurry line in there with some nonprofits, especially if you count political and lobbying efforts.

The only mental framework where that argument makes sense is some kind of rampaging free-market-worship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com