As far as
I know, I am not licensed to practice medicine. At least, I have
no memory of attending, let alone completing, such
training – Pre-Med; Med School; Internship; Residency. I do
remember taking an animal science class at Eastern Kentucky
University, and I did very well in that, so maybe...I am a vet?
Maybe I have
simply forgotten. I am often accused of forgetting things...where
my son put the cord to the satellite TV box; where my husband
put his keys...things like that. Yes, I am almost convinced that
I "slept" through the last many years and
medical school because...major drug companies treat me as though
I am a doctor! Drug companies are heavily involved in research
so surely they checked my credentials and found them valid. These
companies seem convinced that I am up-to-date on the latest diseases
and afflictions; know how to interpret lab results; am knowledgeable
about medications including their possible side effects and possible
interactions with other prescription drugs being taken. I realized
all of this when drug suppliers began sending me the information
I will need to make decisions regarding my prescriptions, rather
than wait for my doctor to do it! We all know that such information
is sent to...doctors!! If the drug companies believe in me so
strongly that they share such information with me, why should
I not believe myself to be one?
However...I
realized the error in my thinking when I recently picked up a
copy of the Readers Digest. Everyone should be familiar the small
family magazine that so many people, of all ages – even those
with limited reading skills – turn to for a bit of fun; light
reading; interesting stories that they might have missed elsewhere.
I have long enjoyed that publication. Even as kids, we fought
over who would get to read it first (and end up reading the jokes
aloud, thus spoiling it for everyone in the family).
I had not
read a RD for some time though, so was shocked to find the magazine
full of the same kinds of medical information that normally is
only sent to doctors (and now to me). It was all there for anyone
to see (although I had to take my glasses off in order to read
the small print). I realized then that the drug companies are
trying to inservice everyone in the art of doctoring!!
Millions
of people see numerous drug ads on TV: idiots playing chess in
the wee hours; butterflies entering windows that any sane person
would have closed to prevent the entry of mosquitoes and cat burglars;
people 'celebrating' in a field. One-page; two-page; multi-page
ads, all offering medical information to anyone who ever dreamed
of making decisions like a doctor, or of becoming an official
doctor-nagger. Everyone is being informed; educated; advised –
in regards to which medications a patient should decide
they want.
Actually,
I think drug companies are only pretending to educate everyone.
They are aware of IQs and know that only a small percentage of
the population are accepted into Med School. They understand that
if they want to sell more of their product, they must advertise
to create a new market. I believe that their real goal is to create
a new kind of patient – an armchair physician who is also skilled
at nagging.
These brave
new consumers will arrive at the doctor's office prepared to demand
a prescription for "L" brand name drug rather
than for "Z." These unlicensed medical decision-makers
will provide the (real) doctor with information to support their
demands – information and claims now widely distributed by drug
companies. In many cases, these armchair physicians will only
remember the name of the drug – which, of course,
will be the drug with the most entertaining commercial or the
largest, most complex (i.e. incomprehensible for many people)
ads in all kinds of magazines (not just RD!).
These product-loyal
drug-namers will have an arsenal to support their demands – small-print
ads from the mail or publications; notes scribbled on the edge
of a TV Guide; retelling of commercials; anger; tears; threats.
The conflict will begin. Just as children do, these "informed
consumers" will try anything to push a doctor into letting
the patient decide the medication to be prescribed.
When Armchair Doctors do not get what they think they want, it
will be "no holds barred," and that is probably what
the ads hope to accomplish.
I feel sorry
for the Real Doctors. In the past they listened to, "My sister-in-law
said I should ask for..." or "My 4th cousin,
twice removed, on my father's side of the family, swears by drug
"T." Now physicians are faced with drug company claims
regurgitated by patients. Ads will be spoken word-for-rehearsed-word,
just like poems and pieces small children memorize to make the
teacher happy. Too often the words remain meaningless to the speaker.
(In school, my father had to memorize a lengthy passage from Chaucer,
in Old English, and could flawlessly recite the mostly-meaningless
chatter until he died at age 76. His teacher would be so proud.)
But seriously,
I believe this new advertising gimmick is going to backfire. This
time, I think the drug companies have really stepped into a big
cowpie...a fresh one that is only going to spread wider; become
stickier; a brown river of no return. Why? Picture this likely-to-occur
thousands-of-times scenario:
An Armchair
Doctor arrives at the clinic convinced, thanks to a 3-page ad
with mail-in envelope, that they will become healthy, strong,
sleep like a baby, and play chess like a champ – if only
– Real Doctor prescribes "X" drug. Real-doctor disagrees,
believing that "Y" drug is much more appropriate for
this unique individual with his/her very unique blood tests and
history, both of which support the physician's decision.
Request thwarted!!
Armchair Doctor moves to the next level of a developing tantrum,
waving an ad torn from a magazine, while insisting that
he/she be given a prescription for his/her preferred medication
(a choice that was encouraged by widely distributed information,
accurate or not, and sometimes cute, repeatedly run, television
commercials). Real doctor holds firm, explaining possible side-effects
and/or conflicts with other prescriptions currently being taken
by the patient. Receiving another, and very unwelcome "No,"
while neither listening to, nor comprehending the doctor's logical
explanation, patient resorts to whining, nagging, begging, tears,
anger! What is a Real Doctor to do?
A) Give in
and prescribe the less appropriate medication, making the patient
(and the drug company) happy but possibly putting the patient
at-risk.
OR
B) Stick
to his educated decision. Prescribe the correct medication, thereby
making the patient so angry that he/she either 1) does not fill
the prescription, or 2) fills it but refuses to take the pills
as prescribed, possibly putting him/herself at-risk.
This is a
lose-lose situation and drug companies should consider such problems
and the possible repercussions for unhealthy people as such scenes
play out. (Lawsuits? Big, 7+-figure lawsuits?) If I were a doctor,
I would document everything – "Two ads, usual nagging, whining,
and begging. Finally, evil threats of harming myself and my family."
One drug
company's ad does includes the statement, "It is important
for patients to take their medicine every day as directed by their
doctor or health care provider." At first I thought, "Finally!
At least one drug supplier is attentive to the basic issue
– the health of the patient." I was hopeful that at least
one drug supplier was mending its ways...until I read the second
sentence, "If patients stop taking 'WOW-Rx' suddenly, they
could have chest pain and/or a heart attack." Nothing like
FEAR as a sales strategy!
Would it
not be more ethical for said company to state, "Whether or
not you should take 'WOW-Rx' is a decision that your physician
should make. Take any prescribed medication, whether
ours, or another's, as it is prescribed. Do not stop taking
any medication without your doctor's advice."
As the original
second sentence reads, the company may as well have added, "Choose
WOW-Rx! You will only be safe if you take that specific, brand
name drug. You might even die if you do not take
"WOW-Rx," so do not stop taking it until you have taken
hundreds and thousands of doses; until you have lost your effectiveness
at nagging or threatening your doctor into renewing your prescription."
No, I am
not a doctor, and neither are most people, and I believe it is
unconscionable for drug manufactures to advertise; to push
their products to non-medically-trained persons. This
policy – this gimmick – sets patients up to undermine treatment
plans that their doctors have chosen after careful study and thorough
knowledge of the patient. People should not be encouraged to believe
that they know better than doctors regarding how to treat their
symptoms. Such unfounded confidence in one's medical knowledge
has come about because untrained persons are being bombarded with
slick ads by drug pushers companies.
This setting
up; this encouragement; of conflict between doctors and patients
is unethical and potentially very harmful. I thought so the first
time I saw one of the brand-pushing ads, and now I only feel more
strongly so. None of the cleverly-worded disclaimers makes me
feel any more comfortable about an advertising practice that encourages
non-medical persons to believe that they know and understand more
than they really do; that gives people the idea of doing battle
with medical doctors in order to get what they want and think
they need.
I
was happy to write a statement that drug companies can include
in their final for-the-public ads: "Medical decisions,
including assessments, interpretations, treatment plans, and medications,
should be made by physicians. We will immediately stop all ads
that provide medical information to the general public and will
limit our future ads to publications and journals specifically
designed and written for trained medical personnel."