2008 Woodie Awards
Guest Column: This is the face of erectile dysfunction
Nathaniel Snyder
Issue date: 3/10/08 Section: Opinion
Concerning Tim Hiller's March 6 column "Deceiving the masses," there is no more annoying sin a thoughtful person can commit than writing a bland summary. Hiller's opinion column was simply a regurgitation of a few New York Times articles (last month: front page news), a few op-ed's in The Washington Post and the Times (in the course of the last couple weeks: doctors and politicians) and a snippet from congressional hearings. If I wanted news and opinions from those primary sources, I would read them.
Furthermore, why do we attack Jarvik as unqualified? Who would you rather have advertising drugs to you? Would you rather it be a paid actor, Bob Dole - let us not forget that hilariously awkward, yet INCREDIBLY effective erectile dysfunction ad - or a person who has gone through medical school and works in a biomedical field? From those choices, I would pick Jarvik. He holds a medical degree, therefore earning the title doctor, regardless of whether his current career path requires he practice medicine (and be thereby subject to additional requirements and fees).
The problem is not with Jarvik but rather the idea of advertising in the pharmaceutical industry. The first point is to address the idea of patient-doctor dialogue. Studies show that increasing the amount of time spent between a patient and a doctor results in better care (following common sense). Asking a doctor a question about a medication would ideally force that doctor to look at your chart and, with graceful bedside manner, tell you why the drug is right for you. Along the way, the doctor should probably tell you exactly how many of your health problems are correlated to the extra poundage you are lugging around. Most doctors would be too busy dealing with overloading numbers of patients and insurance paperwork.
Yes, drug companies have a vested interest in selling their product - all businesses do. McDonalds is still allowed to advertise on television with manicured cheeseburgers that look absolutely nothing like the greasy and delicious artery-clogging product they vend. Truth in advertising is a sick joke because advertising consists of presenting you the most biased argument the business can get away with, and the precedent for bias has been set quite high.
Within reasonable limits, how do we fix this problem? Hiller points to the tobacco industry, a highly regulated industry in our "free market" system. The risks of certain industries subject those industries to additional regulations protecting the consumer. College Park bars are subject to food/alcohol sales ratios; diners are subject to health inspections. Why not make the pharmaceutical industry subject to limits on advertising? Perhaps putting limits on lobbying first will allow other advertisement limits to pass with much less resistance. In addition, drug companies would put money in research and development and work on world problems such as malaria, rather than money drugs for aging, overweight and affluent westerners. That would be a win-win with less annoying saturation of drug ads and would help cure worldwide illness. In the meantime, if only they had a drug for advertising induced hypochondriasis that I could nag my doctor about ...
Nathaniel Snyder is a junior biochemistry and philosophy major. He can be reached at nsnyder9@umd.edu.
Furthermore, why do we attack Jarvik as unqualified? Who would you rather have advertising drugs to you? Would you rather it be a paid actor, Bob Dole - let us not forget that hilariously awkward, yet INCREDIBLY effective erectile dysfunction ad - or a person who has gone through medical school and works in a biomedical field? From those choices, I would pick Jarvik. He holds a medical degree, therefore earning the title doctor, regardless of whether his current career path requires he practice medicine (and be thereby subject to additional requirements and fees).
The problem is not with Jarvik but rather the idea of advertising in the pharmaceutical industry. The first point is to address the idea of patient-doctor dialogue. Studies show that increasing the amount of time spent between a patient and a doctor results in better care (following common sense). Asking a doctor a question about a medication would ideally force that doctor to look at your chart and, with graceful bedside manner, tell you why the drug is right for you. Along the way, the doctor should probably tell you exactly how many of your health problems are correlated to the extra poundage you are lugging around. Most doctors would be too busy dealing with overloading numbers of patients and insurance paperwork.
Yes, drug companies have a vested interest in selling their product - all businesses do. McDonalds is still allowed to advertise on television with manicured cheeseburgers that look absolutely nothing like the greasy and delicious artery-clogging product they vend. Truth in advertising is a sick joke because advertising consists of presenting you the most biased argument the business can get away with, and the precedent for bias has been set quite high.
Within reasonable limits, how do we fix this problem? Hiller points to the tobacco industry, a highly regulated industry in our "free market" system. The risks of certain industries subject those industries to additional regulations protecting the consumer. College Park bars are subject to food/alcohol sales ratios; diners are subject to health inspections. Why not make the pharmaceutical industry subject to limits on advertising? Perhaps putting limits on lobbying first will allow other advertisement limits to pass with much less resistance. In addition, drug companies would put money in research and development and work on world problems such as malaria, rather than money drugs for aging, overweight and affluent westerners. That would be a win-win with less annoying saturation of drug ads and would help cure worldwide illness. In the meantime, if only they had a drug for advertising induced hypochondriasis that I could nag my doctor about ...
Nathaniel Snyder is a junior biochemistry and philosophy major. He can be reached at nsnyder9@umd.edu.
Submit a letter to the editor or post a comment below.
Be the first to comment on this story