New Page 1

I SAW IT ON TV;
IT MUST BE GOOD
Journal of Healing – Feb. 1, 2006
By Mary Koch

It never ceases to amaze me how we humans can start out with something of questionable value, put a lot of thought, effort and creativity into it and end up with something truly terrible.

Case in point: the annual International Global Awards honoring advertising in the healthcare industry. Among the three “Grand Global” winners this year was a smarmy, double entendre Viagra TV commercial.

“It was real easy to pick out the good stuff this year,” said Mike Lazur, an awards spokesman. From that can we infer there was a whole lot of bad stuff? Apparently so. The news release quoting Lazur continues:

“Creativity is creativity, but people are playing it much safer as the years go by. There just isn’t as much out-of-the-box and outlandish stuff being done anymore . . . “

Pity. Prescription drug advertising on TV is of questionable value in the first place. Just ask your doctor. With pharmaceuticals spending $2.4 billion annually on direct-to-consumer advertising, mainly on television, doctors are inundated by patients asking for pills that are often inappropriate, ineffective or outlandishly expensive.

“It doesn’t state in the direct-to-consumer ads that the treatment for toenail fungus costs $800 per course of therapy, or that the ‘purple pill’ for heartburn will cost $120 a month as opposed to Zantac, which can work just as well for a fraction of the cost,” objects the late Robert H. LeBow, M.D., in his book, “Health Care Meltdown.”

Proponents argue that health care ads are about consumer education, but Dr. Jun Ma, Stanford researcher, warns consumers to be wary.

“Knowing that drug promotion is done primarily for marketing – not education – physicians and the public need to analyze this information more objectively and be more proactive in seeking out information,” he says.

Ma’s study showed that drug manufacturers don’t spend their money advertising the broad spectrum of pharmaceuticals. About half of overall spending is concentrated on just 50 drugs, presumably the most appealing money makers.

Of those top fifty, 13 are for “enhancement,” writes Carl Elliott, in his book, “Better than Well.” These are so-called “lifestyle” drugs, like Viagra.

“Prozac will transform your gray skies into blue. Rogaine will transform your balding future into a perennially youthful one. Viagra will give you back your sexual vigor,” continues Elliott, mimicking the commercials.

Without doubt, psychiatric and even enhancement drugs are crucial for some patients. Anti-anxiety meds and anti-depressants were important tools for my husband as he struggled with clinical depression and delusional psychosis after his stroke.

But there’s a fine line between healing and consumerism gone amok. There’s something very sick about letting the drug makers define the “good life” for us.

Some would argue that the pharmaceutical industry is a business like any other; it needs to market aggressively to make a profit.

I argue that drug makers have a unique social responsibility. They have the potential to relieve human suffering; they should meet a higher standard. Instead, they spend almost three times as much on marketing and administration as they spend on research and development.

According to Elliott, the drug maker Roche spent $76.2 million in one year promoting its obesity drug, Xenical. Ads included one b with photographs of a chunky, unhappy woman and the slogan, “Inside every block of stone there is a statue.”

Now I wonder why that didn’t win a “Grand Global,” maybe in the “Most Cruel” category.