Thoughts on Drug Advertising

Pharmaceutical commercials on television are required to list possible, often scary (or even deadly), side effects. (Not every conceivable side effect need be mentioned.) But the actors on such ads are always portrayed as smiling, happy customers, as if the dreaded list of possible side effects is more theoretical than real.

Perhaps some of the actor-patients in drug commercials should be required to portray patients whose clinical outcome is not the desired one. That might make drug advertising more realistic and discourage people from pestering their physicians to prescribe the advertised product.

Drug advertising, particularly for newly approved drugs, serves a useful function by informing people of the existence of a drug that might benefit them. Current advertising, however, raises hopes for improved health outcomes while downplaying possible drug dangers.

At one time, consumer-targeted drug advertising was not allowed at all. The current regulations, though helpful, are too permissive. Advertising should state what a new pharmaceutical can be used for and direct potential customer-patients to consult their own physician for more information and advice as to whether they could benefit from the medicine. As long as the drug is not portrayed as a miracle cure (suggested by a screenful of happy patients), it should be unnecessary to list potential side effects. The many television viewers who are not potential customers for the drug manufacturer’s product would appreciate the scaled-down ads.