I’m sure that many of you have seen the ad for the prescription cholesterol drug Lipitor, produced by Pfizer. In the ad, Dr. Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart endorses the use of Liptor to help lower your cholesterol when “diet and exercise aren’t enough.” Interspersed with close-ups of Jarvik pontificating on how great Liptor is, Jarvik is shown gliding gracefully over the placid surface of a beautiful mountain lake. But wait, that isn’t actually him. The rower is actually a body double, who is a member of the Lake Washington Rowing Club in Seattle. If you thought that Jarvik’s deception ended there, you were wrong. Although Jarvik has a medical degree, he is not actually a cardiologist and he is not even licensed to practice medicine. Instead, he says that 4 out of 5 doctors would recommend Lipitor to one of their family members.
The commercial itself is quite visually pleasing to watch. Therein lies the problem with the ad. Advertisements for prescription drugs should not be directed at consumers. Instead, the target audience of the commercials should be the same target group that is supposed to benefit from drugs like Lipitor. There has been considerable debate over Dr. Jarvik’s ad, but this is not the first time that consumer advertising of prescription drugs has endured close scrutiny. In 2004, “Merck withdrew Vioxx, a heavily advertised painkiller, after a clinical trial showed that it sharply increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes”. Now pharmaceutical companies are required to stagger the start of advertising for new drugs and their release onto the market.
Pharmaceutical companies, much like doctors, have a fiduciary relationship with all of their customers, who trust them to provide them with safe drugs that will help them with any of a variety of ailments that afflict the US public today. However, consumer advertising of prescription drugs is a violation of this fiduciary relationship, because the commercial appeal of the ads reveals the companies’ primary goal as one of making money, not of helping people with medical conditions.
To be fair, there are celebrity drug endorsers who are completely sincere and honest. I am speaking, of course, of Sally Fields, whose advertisements for the osteoporosis drug Boniva are motivated by her personal health condition (she is an osteoporosis sufferer), which she announced publicly in 2005. Ms. Fields has become an avid supporter of women’s health issues. However, Ms. Fields’ altruism is certainly an example that Dr. Jarvik (and Pfizer) might consider following.
Sources:
Drug Ads Raise Questions for Heart Pioneer
February 7, 2008
ntyimes.com
Baby Boom Icon Sally Fields Takes on New Leading Role as Women’s Health Advocate
April 20, 2006
http://www.rocheusa.com/newsroom/current/2006/pr2006042002.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think there are deeper problems involved with drug endorsements than Rachel discusses. I certainly agree that Dr. Jarvik is misrepresenting himself, in order to promote Lipitor. There are obvious problems involved with that. However, Fields's endorsement of Boniva is also problematic, even if she presents herself as no more or no less than she is.
The issue lies in the breakdown of the fiduciary relationship between doctors and their patients. Normally, patients expect their doctors to do what is best for them, and provide them with all the pertinent information. This is because patients acknowledge that doctors more knowledgeable about their condition, and that they can receive better care by following the doctor's orders.
However, when drug companies directly advertise to the patients, the doctors begin to lose some of that trust. When a patient thinks they know a drug, they are much more likely to choose it over one they have never heard of. If they request it, instead of another, possible more effective drug, they may be harming their health. As patients become more and more "educated" they doctors are less able to uphold their end of the fiduciary relationship.
I strongly believe that communication should be strictly limited between drug companies and the general public. The drug companies should contact doctors who are better able to analyze the information with which they are presented. We, the patients, are much safer that way.
Post a Comment