Doctors want ban on prescription drug, device advertisements

Post by hsuresh » Fri, Nov 20, 2015, 4:09 AM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #93

These ads are one of the main reasons I became a cord cutter. I'm very happy they have not yet followed me onto any of the streaming services I use. They are the creepiest thing ever on television. The actors sit around dinner tables with family members speaking unnatural, FDA manipulated dialog ("Oh, I'm doing great, I've been taking Pradaxa for my afib, not caused by a heart valve problem!") Then you get the unendi…

Post by agarden » Fri, Nov 20, 2015, 4:37 AM UTC

rtl49 wrote: post #82

FireBeyond wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One I see in the field as a paramedic? "Any drug allergies?" "Aspirin, Tylenol, Tramadol, etc" "Oh, so you're allergic to 'all' non-narcotic pain medication? That must be ... inconvenient."

I was taken in an ambulance to the hospital once for a dislocated limb. I never understood why the paramedics seemed to find new satisfaction in life when I rejected the narcotic painkiller. Must have come as a pleasant surprise.

Post by memonkey » Fri, Nov 20, 2015, 4:48 AM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #93

These ads are one of the main reasons I became a cord cutter. I'm very happy they have not yet followed me onto any of the streaming services I use. They are the creepiest thing ever on television. The actors sit around dinner tables with family members speaking unnatural, FDA manipulated dialog ("Oh, I'm doing great, I've been taking Pradaxa for my afib, not caused by a heart valve problem!") Then you get the unendi…

Post by bags159 » Fri, Nov 20, 2015, 4:53 AM UTC

aianus wrote: post #211

toomuchtodo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has positives, as consumers can be more active participants in their health, but can also lead to people shopping for doctors who will prescribe the drugs that they want based on flimsy research and marketing. Turns out, people suck at being intelligent healthcare consumers. Its not their fault though. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/upshot/why-consumers-often... http://www.nber.org/papers/w21160 Disclaimer:…

Have you ever lived in a country with single-payer healthcare? Let me tell you it's not all roses. - Months long waits for anything requiring a specialist unless you're literally about to die. - Arbitrary exclusions like dental and optical. - Doctors taking in ~50% of the entire provincial budget and whining that it's not enough. And at a typical tech worker salary this all this ends up being more expensive in additi…

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Nov 20, 2015, 5:00 AM UTC

agarden wrote: post #274

TeMPOraL wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if your drug is the best, doctors should use it anyway, and if it's bad but you can increase its usage with huge marketing campaign, then mankind just gets screwed for own money. That's 100% true for everything - just replace "drug" with "product". As soon as an advertisement is leaving the point of informing about product's existence and features, it's starting to trick people into chosing a suboptimal option.

If people acted like homo economicus, that would be true. But people are so irrational, that sometimes they need to be convinced to do the right thing for the wrong reason, no? In other words, a given advertisement might be tricking people into choosing the optimal option.