The Complicity of the Media in Drug Marketing
The thesis of this piece in Columbia Journalism Review is that the media is complicit in drug marketing. I would somewhat disagree. I think the media often does not know how to evaluate marketing claims and that is hardly unique to the pharmaceutical industry--think of the coverage of the food industry or of the space program or of claims about medicine's war on cancer and its successes. The media is in the news business a bit of the time and the entertainment business much of the time and the grab your attention in any way we can mode all of the time. No one should think of the media as really capable of getting past its fundamental business values to become a 'fair' broker of health news.Not gonna happen. - Art Caplan
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Which raises the question of just how the average person is supposed to get reliable health information. . .
- by Sue on Jul 27, 2005 at 10:32 PM | link
...you could ask your doctor.
- by I suppose... on Jul 28, 2005 at 1:54 PM | link
Better yet, find a doctor with a nurse you like
- by Beverly on Jul 28, 2005 at 3:15 PM | link
My initial comment was only partly tongue in cheek: your doctor has maybe 15 minutes to spend with you. . . not a lot of time to explain much of anything.
- by Sue on Jul 28, 2005 at 6:51 PM | link
...I'm a doctor, and answer questions about medications all the time. Fortunately for all concerned, I don't have to be the one to answer all of a patient's questions. Well-known strategies for meeting the needs of a patient with multiple, complicated questions include scheduling the patient for more time, or for more frequent appointments designed to address a series of questions or concerns.
Apropo Dr. Caplan's post, those of us who are practitioners are familiar with the species of patient who insists on receiving the latest, colorfully advertised medication. I make a point of prescribing generic medications in all instances in which I believe the evidence supports a class effect. This is a practice borne of economy and prudence: Having witnessed more than a few new drugs removed from the market months or years after their introduction because of untoward side-effects, I've run across very few "new" drugs I can do without, at least until such drugs achieve a proven track-record.
- by Well... on Jul 29, 2005 at 2:32 PM | link
Nice comment, Well, and I take your point re medication questions. I know an awful lot of primary care docs, though, who don't feel that they ever have enough time to spend with the patient in front of them, as they worry about getting to the next one, and the next one, and the one after that.
I think the trickier piece may be education about the more general, overarching issues. . . like screening tests, and why some might make sense and others not, et cetera. Our health care "system" is set up to care for the acutely ill patient and the complex chronic/case-management case. People who are going to become those patients in the future--in part because they don't know how to take care of themselves--are dismissed as the "worried well."
I'm not criticizing docs for this at all--so long as the system continues to reward clinical intervention and ignore the need for education, we're stuck.
- by Sue on Jul 29, 2005 at 4:12 PM | link
with the argument that prevention/education needs to be emphasized (and compensated). And, I think you'd agree that physicians need not be the only or even the predominant health care professionals responsible for these initiatives.
But, I don't view acute/chronic care and prevention/education as dichotomous. The natural history of most chronic conditions is to get worse over time, prevention notwithstanding. One effort shouldn't (and can't) come at the expense of the other, unless one wants the quality of acute/chronic care to deteriorate accordingly.
Aside from all that, I'm skeptical that the knowledge most effective means of staying healthy is unknown to most of the public. Most people know, for example, that chain smoking, dietary habits that promote and perpetuate morbid obesity, and using leisure time for lethargic hobbies are not condusive to good health. Obviously that doesn't exhaust the legitimate concerns of the "worried well," but if these truths were widely and regularly acknowledged in practice, there would be ample time for health care professionals to attend to other concerns.
- by I completely agree... on Jul 29, 2005 at 6:35 PM | link