Did you ever wonder, after seeing one of those very convincing, sophisticated and seemingly scientific drug ads on television whether you have resltless leg syndrome, social anxiety disorder, depression, female sexual dysfunction, premature male baldness (and ejaculation), early dementia and/or erectile dysfunction...or perhaps all of them?These are, afterall, very convincing advertisements, and you know, now that you think of it...maybe your memory isn't quite as good as it used to be, and you don't feel as upbeat as others seem to feel, and you just don't sleep as comfortably as when you were younger and you just can't keep that erection as long as you used to be able to. So perhaps, you along with millions and millions of others go to your doctor and request a pill.

This is the essence of direct-to-consumer advertising. Pharmaceutical companies spend large amounts of money each year on the these quasi-medical edu-tainment clips, in hopes of convincing the viewing audience that it could benefit in some way from using these drugs, and these expenditures run into the billions, according to Amy Shaw.I am in no way discounting the fact that many people do indeed suffer with and from medical conditions that impair sexual performance, blood circulation, mood and hair volume. I am; however, most fascinated and worried by what have come to be called "lifestyle drugs." Joel Lexchin of the School of Health Policy and Management at York University in Toronto notes that "drug therapy is moving out of treating diseases to providing enhancements to what had hitherto been seen as normal functioning" and asks "is any deviation from normality fair game for treatment? What about people who have nothing medically wrong with them, but just want to feel better? Who will pay for these therapies, and what are the implications for the way we use health-care resources?"

While pharmaceutical companies do indeed save lives and improve the quality of life for those with chronic illness, they are not humanitarian organizations...they are for-profit companies. And they have indeed profitted and this is most evident in the arena of the "blockbuster drug", those that garner at least $1 billion in annual sales.  You know the ones-Lipitor, Celebrex, Vioxx, Prozac and Viagra and perhaps in the near future, Cialis. If your goal is profitability, then advertising is key, and it is for this reason that the pharmaceutical complanies, aka PhRMA (Pharmacetuical and Research Manufacturers of America spend billions in advertising these drugs and touting their benefits.)

Prior to 1997, drug companies marketed directly to physicians, and were severely limited in doing so directly to the public. However, in 1997, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) issued its "Guidance for Industry: Consumer Directed Broadcast Advertisements", which, in essence, lessend the restricitions on direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs to the public through television and radio advertisements. And that very act opened the flood gates, and we were subsequently bombarded with catchy and promising print ads and television commercials.  While I more fully document this evolution in "Pscyotropic Drugs and Popular Culture: Essays on Medicine, Mental Health and the Media",  the point I am making is that it is extremely important to be very cautious and wise consumers of advertisements, particularly for medicine, in the public media. For although the FDA works very hard to control their content for our safety, these ads are still very evocative, seductive and promising (even thought they typically contain as much cautionary text and verbiage as they do offers of physical and emotional well-being. As more and more companies enter the ED (erectile dysfunction) drug market, the advertisers have become emboldened, suggesting that many more people than previously thought had erectile dysfunction and they could beneift from these drugs. Eli Lily's UK advertisement campaign called "40 over 40"  is one such example in that it suggested that up to 40% of men over 40 may have some degree of erectile dysfunction. This finding has subsequently been contested by watchdog organizations.

The 40 over 40 program is ingenious as you will see if you follow the above link.  If you are attentive, you will recognize Ravel's sensuous Bolero playing not-so-inconspicuously in the background, as a well-healed white couple begin their sexual encounter in the kitchen. Just as they clutch, the blender on the counter whirls up a thick white concoction.  I don't think I am going out on a limb in suggesting how suggestive this commerical is, which takes us back to the beginning of, and reason for this post.  It is important that we pay particular attention to not only the overt, but covert content in the television and print ads that form the fabric of our lives.  It is crucial that we read the disclaimers, investigate the research upon which these ads are based (such as the Massachussetts Male Aging Study) and ask ourselves crucial questions about the shadowy borderland between health and illness, lest we be seduced into believing that we are sicker than we are because our legs tremble at night, or because we are not feeling chipper all of the itime, or because we can't maintain an erection indefinitely, or as we used to when we were younger.

• Print
• Send to friend
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Have a comment? Start the discussion here!

Tags: advertisements, anecdote, commercial advertisement, david feinberg, dementia, drug ads, erection, fda, innocent question, jackie gleason, leg syndrome, male baldness, medical conditions, medicines, natural male enhancement, popular culture, puns, sights and sounds, social anxiety disorder, there have been attempts