First amendment issues need to be considered.

First amendment protections for commercial speech are very weak. There are many kinds of advertising which are heavily regulated or banned outright. Alcohol, tobacco, securities (stocks and bonds), consumer loans, and gambling are all examples of products or services where advertising is regulated or even banned in some media.

I doubt that a ban on certain types of advertising for prescription medications would pose much of a first amendment challenge. It isn't hard to make the case that the government has an interest in regulating how potentially dangerous medications are marketed to consumers.

Patients should be deciding what care they receive and what medicines they take. People need to take responsibility for their own healthcare. If all doctors had all information, than a patient could rely on their doctors. This is not the case. There is so much information published each month that doctors can't keep up. The spread of best practices is horribly slow. Patients need to get smarter and take some control of their care. This will raise quality. Having a patient come in and ask about specific medicines, whether they learned about it on TV, from the web, or from a friend is a first step.

Nicely put Shivering Timbers (love the name, BTW).

As for your thoughts Douglas? I agree that a patient should gain information for themself. But it should be from reputable independent sources on the internet, or research in a library. It shouldn't be from television commercials geared to make every drug seem like a wondrous panacea that will fix every problem you have.

As a former Advertising and Public Relations commercial director, I agree that there are areas of advertising that should not be “glamorized” as stated, offering a panacea of relief. I have no problem with a (drug) company providing valuable information on health and treatments that are available through the media or even in commercial form. I do however have a real problem with commercials that show the depressed cartoon characters blobbing across the screen with sudden relief with birds singing all about or purple pills flying about the screen as the ocean waves pound the jagged rocks with the throngs of relieved sufferers “cured.” It is just bad business for drug manufacturers of Prescription drugs to promote there cure as the leading this or that of the day but no one in advertising will go for this today as you look at the amount of dollars at risk if they become regulated and off the boob tube. Cialis is a great case…their losses are due to so much TV advertising that did not sell the drug at a fast enough pace.

Quote from earlier comemnt by douglas: "Patients should be deciding what care they receive and what medicines they take. People need to take responsibility for their own healthcare."

Since when a commercial is a reliable source information? Since when everybody has enough education in health sciences to be able to de-cypher the medical-buzz words used in prescription drugs commercials? Since when it is the best interest of big-pharma companies to give un-biased informations about the drugs they produce and want to sell?

Doctors are certainly not able to keep up with the info but they are better equiped than the average TV viewer to read between the lines of any commercials...

The only thing about doctors, it is just troubling how sometimes they let Big-Pharma companies bribe them with Vacations in the carribeans to make the case for some of their products...

Like it or not, a doctor's presciptions are largely influenced by incentives and promotion. Pull-through drug ads are a way to combat the direct-to-doctor marketing done by competitors...but they also work to create a problem to solve. To judge by advertising, erectile disfunction is an epidemic in this country. Is this really such a rampant issue? Baby Boomers are apparently a randy lot.

There are alternatives to name brands that are not generic and can be prescribed for significantly lower prices. The fact is that a consumer who does manage his consumption can get the same results at a fraction of the cost.

D

In response to Douglas' comment, I offer the examples of COX-2 inhibitors Bextra, Celebrex and Vioxx as well as the statin Crestor. Even the FDA and doctors did not receive adequate information regarding the performance and safety of these drugs; how is the average American citizen without the benefit of 8-years of college and years of internship to suss out the failures of both new drugs and the regulatory agency designed to protect them? In the case of the COX-2 inhibitors, we're talking about THOUSANDS of deaths that may be directly related to the reliance of medical personnel and citizens upon both drug companies' promotional information and the FDA's authorization of these drugs.

While I agree whole-heartedly that citizens are ultimately responsible for making choices about their healthcare, they must rely on experts to guide them and on the ethics of drug companies and regulatory agencies to help them with that choice.

Maybe they should just limit the time frame in which they are shown. As a mother of two toddlers, my main beef with them is that they show them all day long. My kids can't hear the word f&^k on TV (and rightfully so) but my two year old can ask me what erectile dysfunction is? That doesn't seem right right either. I agree that you have to be involved in your healthcare and talking to your doctor is key in deciding what course of treatment you take but I usually believe my doctor when they tell me that a certain course isn't right for me. After all, they have the MD, not me.