Sunday, April 2, 2006 | 7:23 a.m.
In the mid-1980s drug companies began to change how they market their wide assortment of prescription pills. Instead of focusing almost exclusively on doctors' offices, clinics and hospitals, they began advertising directly to consumers, mostly through television commercials.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates the advertising to ensure that it contains both the risks and benefits of the pills. For years, however, clever camera work and rapid speech helped mask the risks. Such obvious deception aroused criticism. Fearing the FDA might step in, the drug makers adopted a code of ethics last year.
Now we are seeing many TV ads for drugs that are much more frank. Well-dressed actors, sometimes in lab coats, break from their promotional expressions and switch to a more serious tone to speak at length about risks.
Side effects of (Brand X) are usually mild or moderate, they say, and, depending upon the drug, they rattle off what those side effects might be: stomach pain, constipation, flatulence, nausea, bloating, severe heartburn, bone pain, diarrhea, muscle aches, internal bleeding, pain while swallowing, unsafe drop in blood pressure, weight gain ... They follow by advising consumers to seek medical attention if such symptoms occur.
We find these ads to be much more honest. But a coalition of advertising and public relations firms is petitioning the FDA for relief, saying the ads "overwarn and underinform." The Coalition for Healthcare Communication argues that it would be sufficient for drug ads to simply carry a generic warning that potential risks and benefits are associated with all prescription drugs.
The FDA should reject this petition. If consumers are to be barraged with ads for prescription drugs, they need to be fully aware of the risks.
archive
