Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#11

Post by kleer001 »

im3w1l wrote: post #6
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

Ad supporters will sometimes say that ads are meant to get the word out about a product so people know its an option. How can we prove that this is false or that the benefits are smaller than the drawbacks?

How?

Find a natural experiment where two very similar populations, chosen at random, were placed into two different cohorts. I'm sure there's one somewhere in the recent and well documented past.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#12

Post by happytoexplain »

cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

>Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

This seems like one of the most cleanly horizontally divided opinions in all of the US - where nearly everybody agrees loudly and strongly with it except the wealthy and powerful. I wish a presidential candidate would have the balls to echo this severe but obviously popular thought and fix the fucking system with extreme prejudice.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#13

Post by Retric »

creaghpatr wrote: post #7
gringoDan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play Devil's Advocate - without pharmaceutical companies developing and marketing drugs, how do we set up an incentive structure that encourages R&D and innovation?

Another Devil's Advocate argument- make patients aware of drugs that could solve XYZ health problem that they weren't previously aware of. They just want you to "ask your doctor about..."

I can see advertising that a condition exists and or a treatment for it exists. But, I have no idea why naming a specific drug benefits the public.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#14

Post by deogeo »

gringoDan wrote: post #5
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

To play Devil's Advocate - without pharmaceutical companies developing and marketing drugs, how do we set up an incentive structure that encourages R&D and innovation?

Why attach all of developing and marketing, when it's only the advertising that's in question?

Doctors/hospitals can learn about new drugs through dry, informative leaflets - TV ads or salesmen talking directly to doctors distorts the demand.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#15

Post by perspective1 »

cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

Pretty strong opinion to posit about 1000s of people without any supporting evidence.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#16

Post by sokoloff »

cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

Marketing can provide information to aid in an information-based evaluation of the best course to take. IMO, that means it’s not inherently unethical, only that done wrong it can be unethical.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#17

Post by dooglius »

gringoDan wrote: post #5
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

To play Devil's Advocate - without pharmaceutical companies developing and marketing drugs, how do we set up an incentive structure that encourages R&D and innovation?

Why do you think advertising promotes innovation? I would see it as the other way around, why innovate when you can just invest more into advertising an inferior product?

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#18

Post by perspective1 »

jormungand wrote: post #8

Management Consultants: A bunch of 20 sth year olds with fancy degrees and zero experience in growing a business helping huge companies grow by whatever means possible. I always found this hugely ironic.

And yet these consultants created a plan so successful NYT is writing about it.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#19

Post by chipperyman573 »

kleer001 wrote: post #11
im3w1l wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad supporters will sometimes say that ads are meant to get the word out about a product so people know its an option. How can we prove that this is false or that the benefits are smaller than the drawbacks?

How? Find a natural experiment where two very similar populations, chosen at random, were placed into two different cohorts. I'm sure there's one somewhere in the recent and well documented past.

This study tested kids but it supports the argument you made, and it's pretty reasonable to assume it applies to adults as well. https://www.cbc.ca/news/kids-think-food-in-mcdonald-s-wrappe...
Post reply on HN