Attorney TV Ads

[wordherder]

They are annoying, but I wouldn't go so far as to say scum as a blanket rule.

Now, when they fight imaginary robots and the like, they really take it down a notch.

Near as I can tell Jeff Martin has stopped battling fifth-rate Transformers and gone back to an endorsement from William Shatner.

...then again the fact that modern-day William Shatner is the less ludicrous option for a law firm ad really says something.

[nathanm]

First of all, these ads are nothing more than lazy ambulance chasing. Second, many of these firms that advertise never handle the case--they refer them to their network of regional law firms who in turn refer them to local counsels throughout the country. I know this because I have been involved with this sort of business practice. Third, some of the medications targeted by these outfits are actually pretty darned important. For example, Levaquin is a big time multifocal antibiotic; however a side effect which patients are made aware of (and which is usually avoided by contraindication questioning) is the basis of a national campaign for clients? I believe these sorts of lawsuits chills innovation and development for the sake of some lawyer making a buck. Remember who this is coming from.

So you're saying that if a drug has serious side effects and a doctor prescribes it anyway the doctor and drug company should be immune from suit?

Or are you just saying lawyers shouldn't be able to advertise on TV?

[Red Arrow]

So you're saying that if a drug has serious side effects and a doctor prescribes it anyway the doctor and drug company should be immune from suit?

There are some big qualifiers but - yes. 

1: The patient MUST be aware of the side effects in language the patient can understand. Tough job, easy for the patient to deny later.  Just look at people still claiming that they didn't know smoking would harm their health.

2: The immediate condition must be worse than the potential side effects.

3: Ultimately, it's the patient's choice. I don't think there is a law that requires you to follow your doctors' advice.  Most of us do because the doc is usually correct. 

[guido911]

What Red Arrow said. 

[cannon_fodder]

If they are fully advised, Red Arrow is absolutely correct.

THIS DRUG MAY INCREASE BLOOD PRESSURE AND LEAD TO DEATH.  But it will give you an erection.

Millions of men thing that's a good trade off.  So long as they are aware of the risk/reward, it is their decision.  If it goes wrong they should LOSE any lawsuit they file unless something else was at play (undisclosed side effect, not informed prior to Rx, etc.).

For some things, like fatal cancers, MS, or other degenerative diseases that are not curable - I wish there was a broader waiver for experimental treatments.  Think about it, you are going to die.  X drug might help you, or it might kill you.  Why shouldn't you be allowed to try it (for free and with other conditions/controls) if you so choose?

[guido911]

For some things, like fatal cancers, MS, or other degenerative diseases that are not curable - I wish there was a broader waiver for experimental treatments.  Think about it, you are going to die.  X drug might help you, or it might kill you.  Why shouldn't you be allowed to try it (for free and with other conditions/controls) if you so choose?

Big +1. My dad most likely got 3 more years because of experimental cancer treatments.

[Conan71]

My orthopedist lamented Vioxx being pulled from the market as he said it was probably the best anti-inflammatory drug ever made.

What doesn't get a whole lot of weight in class-action tort is pre-existing conditions of patients.  Nevermind that people having strokes or fatal heart attacks while taking a particular med were washing it down with three Big Macs, a chocolate cake, or a quart of Jack Daniels. 

Granted, there are some meds which are going to exhibit negative side-effects in some patients, but it's usually a small percentage of the overall group taking the med.  Mass litigation then winds up taking away useful meds from people who's lives are improved by taking the drug.

[DolfanBob]

If they are fully advised, Red Arrow is absolutely correct.

THIS DRUG MAY INCREASE BLOOD PRESSURE AND LEAD TO DEATH.  But it will give you an erection.

Millions of men thing that's a good trade off.  So long as they are aware of the risk/reward, it is their decision.  If it goes wrong they should LOSE any lawsuit they file unless something else was at play (undisclosed side effect, not informed prior to Rx, etc.).

For some things, like fatal cancers, MS, or other degenerative diseases that are not curable - I wish there was a broader waiver for experimental treatments.  Think about it, you are going to die.  X drug might help you, or it might kill you.  Why shouldn't you be allowed to try it (for free and with other conditions/controls) if you so choose?

Now I get it. A friend of mine gave me the strongest dose of 'ol' blue and like a idiot i took it.
My face and hands turned red and i could not stop looking at myself in the mirror thinking i was going to die. The last thing on my mind was sex.
Needless to say i have never had the need to self medicate where that is concerned so it's probably best to not try to.

[sgrizzle]

Suggestive advertising (offering to help you with a problem you didn't know you had and likely don't have) is a staple of pharmaceutical companies and soulless lawyers. Helping people with problems is one thing, making people THINK they have a problem so you can make a buck, is another.

[Steve]

Suggestive advertising (offering to help you with a problem you didn't know you had and likely don't have) is a staple of pharmaceutical companies and soulless lawyers. Helping people with problems is one thing, making people THINK they have a problem so you can make a buck, is another.

Boy, that's the truth.  I have always felt that the main objective of all the prescription drug ads on TV is to convince people they have a medical condition, even if they don't, and then hound their doctors enough into prescribing the advertised medication.  I read that the condition advertised as RLS (restless leg syndrome) is a complete fabrication invented by the drug makers to sell a drug that was originally designed to treat something completely different, Parkinson's disease I think.  They invented the term RLS for purely advertising purposes to hock more prescriptions.

I remember the day when radio/TV advertising by lawyers and direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs was against all codes of ethics, if not outright illegal.  Personally, I think they should both be banned once again.  But since national network TV now gets about 30%+ of its advertising revenue from drug makers, this is not likely to happen.

[Conan71]

I'd never heard of ADHD until they invented Ritalin.  I can't even begin to count the number of kids who were friends of my kids who were on it at one point or another.  They didn't medicate the ADHD's when I was growing up, they just sent them to the principal's office.

I was told once in a marketing class that halitosis was not a proper medical diagnosis, rather it was a scary-sounding term invented by one of the oral care companies to sell more product.

[Conan71]

Boy, that's the truth.  I have always felt that the main objective of all the prescription drug ads on TV is to convince people they have a medical condition, even if they don't, and then hound their doctors enough into prescribing the advertised medication.  I read that the condition advertised as RLS (restless leg syndrome) is a complete fabrication invented by the drug makers to sell a drug that was originally designed to treat something completely different, Parkinson's disease I think.  They invented the term RLS for purely advertising purposes to hock more prescriptions.

I remember the day when radio/TV advertising by lawyers and direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs was against all codes of ethics, if not outright illegal.  Personally, I think they should both be banned once again.  But since national network TV now gets about 30%+ of its advertising revenue from drug makers, this is not likely to happen.

Gotta love the side-effects disclaimer on the RLS drug: compulsive gambling.  "My legs aren't shaking anymore, but I gotta get to the casino!!"

[sgrizzle]

I'd never heard of ADHD until they invented Ritalin.  I can't even begin to count the number of kids who were friends of my kids who were on it at one point or another.  They didn't medicate the ADHD's when I was growing up, they just sent them to the principal's office.

Don't worry, many psychiatrists hadn't either. ADHD is diagnosed similar to ADD, but without requiring the patient to meet as many criteria.

My favorite is "Social Anxiety Disorder" (SAD)

I think I'm going to invent "North American Inherited Vacillating Empathy" syndrome.

[nathanm]

Don't worry, many psychiatrists hadn't either. ADHD is diagnosed similar to ADD, but without requiring the patient to meet as many criteria.

My favorite is "Social Anxiety Disorder" (SAD)

I think I'm going to invent "North American Inherited Vacillating Empathy" syndrome.

That they did not have a name for them until the 90s doesn't make them any less real.

[TURobY]

That they did not have a name for them until the 90s doesn't make them any less real.

True. After all, remember when people used to die of "old age"? Now, it is congenital heart failure, or cancer, or stroke, or...