• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senators Propose Ban on Drug Advertising to Consumers

CimpleMan said:
Think you have a conflict of interest in this matter.
Click to expand...
I do. But my statement is true.
CimpleMan said:
Innovation is important so maybe we need a compromise. Think most can agree proliferation of aggressive advertising for many drugs is a negative.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m not sure we can agree on that. It’s a negative because…why? Because it will cause more people to be treated? Because it will keep more people compliant with their medication regimen because they feel more comfortable when they have a drug advertised on TV, which definitely is a thing?

Because you don’t want to hear about disease and drug awareness to get people to be aware there are now drugs that treat uncommon diseases?
 
Stick to your wacko COVID conspiracy corner. It’s plays better to the rubes.
 
HenryChinaski said:
And for the record, I’m not against any of these drugs. I have no skin in that game. I just personally don’t want to see them advertised on TV.
Click to expand...
I’m also not against women’s menstrual products, but I don’t particularly want to hear about how some handle ‘the gush’ that can occur while taking a bus in white pants.

The First Amendment….freedom isn’t free!
 

Mind the Gap: Understanding the Effects of Pharmaceutical Direct-to-Consumer Advertising - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Balanced view on the subject.

Understand your concern on putting limits on profit for Pharma. Could lead to reduced funding for research of life saving drugs. Tried to convey in my post there's room for a compromise.

Do apologize for bringing your profession up in my post. In the light of day wasn't needed to make my point.
 
the primary reason, though, isn’t limiting profits. That’s just the reason drug companies advertise.

The more important reason is that it steps up both disease awareness and treatment, and having more people treated for disease is a better thing overall.
 
Right, not suggesting there's no benefit to DTC advertising. Suggesting benefits need to weighed against negatives.

I'm fine with your beliefs on the subject, but disagree with the status quo of unlimited DTC advertising. Even New Zealand is reconsidering DTC advertising.

Most high-income countries ban direct advertising of prescription drugs – why does NZ still allow it?

Direct advertising of branded prescription drugs can lead patients to seek unnecessary medicines and treatments. Repealing the current law could help prevent this, and reduce health spending.
theconversation.com
 
Last edited:
I support this. Drug ads are one of those things that foreign visitors are most surprised by, when they visit America. There's not really any good reason to have drug advertisements.
 
Does anyone or anybody pay attention to or watch those drug ads? I know of no one.
 
I would be okay with this. On one hand you want patients to be aware of options but can lead to people self diagnosing. All these happy beautiful people are prancing across the screen in complete bliss. That could be me!
 
I support this. Curious to see if RFK will provide any meaningful support in wrangling the right side of the aisle, considering the cosponsors. I am doubtful, and expect it will fail.
 
The government spends more supporting basic drug research than the companies themselves.

Comparison of Research Spending on New Drug Approvals by the National Institutes of Health vs the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2010-2019 - PMC

How does National Institutes of Health (NIH) investment in pharmaceutical innovation compare with investment by the pharmaceutical industry? In this cross-sectional study of 356 drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This is one of the most egregious examples of socialized costs for privatized profits. Right up there with wall street bailouts. And the profit margins for the pharmaceutical industry are not small. I do not believe that banning ads will significantly reduce their research output.

I do not believe that advertising increases awareness in a positive way. Marketing takes advantage of the many flaws in human psychology to exaggerate the benefits and downplay the negatives. And basically no one in the general public is capable of distinguishing the reality from the bullshit when it comes to drugs. Here's the thing: popping a pill is the easiest thing for a patient to do. Better solutions than medication might exist, but they require more effort and attention from the patient. If people get CONVINCED by a drug ad, and badger their doctor about it, they are probably going to get that prescription if they're persistent and it's vaguely relevant to their health. Because a person who BELIEVES there is an easy drug solution is less likely to follow through on harder solutions. Doctors know this, so the drug option becomes the only option. Even if it wouldn't have been the doctor's first choice. Our society is over medicated, and I think drug ads are a contributor to that.
 
Once again, the main reason for the pharmaceutical advertising is to keep the news networks from reporting anything negative about big pharma.
 
Elmo said:
I support this. Curious to see if RFK will provide any meaningful support in wrangling the right side of the aisle, considering the cosponsors. I am doubtful, and expect it will fail.
Click to expand...
He did say HHS was working on something in regards to the ads but he said there was a Supreme Court decision they had to consider.
 

No, that’s not really true. The NIH does the vast bulk of the basic research, but the practical research needed to bring a drug to market is done by pharma. And it’s a whole lotta money. I’m working g on a during right now that probably will cost a few billion to get to market…and there’s a good chance it will never make it.

Less profits will reduce research output. It’s just the way it is.

So not getting effective medicines for diseases is NOT a good thing?

Brilliant.
 
Partisan nonsense aside, I support this. And I also support banning law firm advertisements.
 
Perotista said:
Does anyone or anybody pay attention to or watch those drug ads? I know of no one.
Click to expand...
You don’t think there are any overweight individuals whom see the ads about a shot that can help them loose weight and don’t ask their physician? Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.