Sunday, October 28, 2007

What To Ban Next?

John Edwards' presidential campaign
Is currently circling the drain.

Meanwhile he's floating a plan
For a 2-year ban...

Personally, I could be tempted by a 2-year ban on new legislation from Congress. But that's not his target. His target is advertising for new drugs.
With such aggressive and often misleading drug company marketing, it's too easy for advertising — instead of doctors or proven results — to influence families' health decisions.
I like the way it's just "families" he's worried about. No point talking about "individuals' decisions", is there?

But after you get "influenced" (not "informed") by the ads, don't you still have to ask your doctor for a prescription? Doesn't he or she then have a chance to say NO, this drug isn't a good idea for you?

As for "proven results" - don't the drug companies spend billions proving these drugs work to the satisfaction of the FDA?

And isn't there a free speech issue here? Oh, wait, that's just for politicians, selling new laws. It doesn't apply to companies, selling new products!

Just kidding. As ReasonPharm puts it:
The fact is, it's the right of drugmakers to advertise their products using whatever non-fraudulent language they choose, and it's the right of consumers to buy those products if they like, without the control of a nanny state seeking to prevent "overuse" of drugs.
Finally, imagine that you have invented a new product that can save lives. Don't you think you have a right to tell people about it? If it's a life-saving product, wouldn't a 2-year ban mean more lost lives?

Such is the sad
But certain reality:
Moratoriums on drug ads
Cause more mortality.

No comments: