Prescription drug advertising

[Guest123_x1]

(Apologies in advance if this belongs in C&M, although this is a mass media-related discussion, it involves public policy debates.)

The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow advertising prescription drugs to end-users, known as "direct-to-consumer advertising".
On American television these days, you cannot watch television without seeing at least one, usually several commercials for prescription drugs.
Over the past decade and a half (or more), the number of such ads (as well as the money spent on them) has increased dramatically. Many of these ads have been found to be misleading, and numerous have been pulled. The US Food and Drug Administration regulates (or at least is supposed to regulate) the content of these ads.
Such ads typically involve a person suffering from some medical condition the drug being advertised is supposed to treat, followed by such person acting happy and carefree after being put on such drug. All such commercials tell you to "ask your doctor about (name of med)/if (name of med) is right for you" and include a voice-over list of serious side effects, such as liver trouble, drowsiness, fainting, heart attack, even death.

For an example, below is an ad for antidepressant Zoloft (Sertraline) from 2004 (said drug has since been slapped with a lawsuit):

Other examples:
*Lipitor (Atorvastatin, cholesterol-lowering drug (statin), 2008-09
*Pradaxa (Dabigatran, blood thinner), 2011 (also recently slapped with a lawsuit)
*Enbrel (Etanercept, psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis treatment), 2004 (the most recent ads for this drug feature Phil Mickelson).

Many people who live in these two countries (especially the US) do not like these kinds of ads flooding television airwaves. Various online articles pertaining to this subject are loaded with comments calling for these ads to be limited or banned altogether.

For Americans and New Zealanders, should action be taken to limit or ban prescription drug advertising to consumers? If you don't live in either the US or NZ, are you glad that you don't have the direct-to-consumer prescription ads, or are there other avenues to advertise prescription medicines to consumers (not counting medical journals, which are read by health care professionals), or should such ads be allowed in your country?

(IMO, prescription drug ads rank right down there with ads by ambulance-chasing lawyers {especially those advertising impending drug lawsuits, such as the Pradaxa and Zoloft suits linked above}, reverse mortgages, structured settlement buyout companies, whole life insurance pitches, and others listed here.)

 

[Nihilego]

I... what. If I hadn't read this thread and just watched that video on its own I'd honestly have thought it a joke. Do they all over-simplify a complex issue, say "take this magic pill to cure everything", and then list a load of reasons why people shouldn't take it i.e. side-effects? It just sounds kinda dumb to me I guess.

But on the broader topic, regarding if it's ok or not, I don't really think so. I don't see why it's necessary... I mean, people know if they're ill and know if they need to go to a doctor to get themselves sorted out so why's advertisement needed? The only thing I can see being achieved here is people turning into hypochondriacs by being convinced that they have the symptoms of whichever illness happens to be on TV. Reallllllly not liking this idea and I'm pretty surprised it's allowed.

edit: oh, and with regards to the placement of this thread, I'm leaving it for now but it could be moved later depending on how the discussion goes.

 

[Esper]

I hate these adds, but what I hate more are the things the drug companies do that you don't see, such as pressuring doctors all over the place to use the drug company's drugs on patients in return for a little extra payoff. At least with these commercials we know how powerful and rich the drug makers are, not that we can do a whole lot about it.

 

[Guest123_x1]

I find it really pointless, because they have a medication to cure X problem, but there's a pile of side effects (Y, Z, A and B) to the point that you'd be better off suffering with what you currently have. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Reminds me of an editorial cartoon by Larry Wright published in The Detroit News in November 2004 showing a doctor who gives a patient a stack of prescriptions, with the first one for his arthritis with the possibility of it causing a heart attack, then a second one to prevent a heart attack, but may damage the liver, and so on.
https://www.caglecartoons.com/viewimage.asp?ID={EAC21839-2403-4538-900D-3D32A4E36715}

 

[Netto Azure]

It seriously pains me to see such advertising on TV. You know what was Ironic? Seeing a Burger King Commercial and then an advertisement for drugs to preven plaque buildup right after each other.

In my opinion, rules previously outright banning such useless advertising in television such as before the changes in FCC rules should be put back in place. The doctor (or a second opinion) would be much more informative than some 30 second avertisement for prescription that has 5 seconds dedicated to a fast reading of side-effects. Which has been pointed out already.