|
We’ve all seen them while battling bouts of insomnia. A so-called doctor serves as a pitchman for a questionable product that will help you shave off the pounds without changing your diet or lifestyle or allow you to dramatically improve your memory.
One expects as much from infomercial hucksters shilling worthless placebos or over-the-counter speed pills. (“Ride the snake.”)
And when people pretend to be doctors in the movies, wackiness ensues (“Doctor. Doctor. Doctor…”).
But when it’s a pharmaceutical giant misleading consumers to believe they’re getting sound, objective advice from a licensed medical professional regarding the world’s most-prescribed drug, it’s not so funny.
Pfizer recently announced that it is pulling its Lipitor ads featuring Robert Jarvik, inventor of the Jarvik-7 artificial heart. It seems Congress was a little peeved about the lab-coat-wearing Jarvik singing the praises of Lipitor in the direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads.
In Pfizer’s defense, Jarvik is indeed a medical doctor. But he has never obtained a license to practice or prescribe medicine in any state. At first that might seem rather innocent. However, Congress determined that Dr. Jarvik dispensing medical advice over the airwaves was a big no no. After all, his grades at Syracuse weren’t good enough for him to get into a U.S. medical school, forcing him to attend school in Bologna, Italy. Do we really want him giving us advice about a potentially dangerous drug?
I’ve said before I’m no fan of most DTC pharmaceutical advertising. This just reaffirms my opinion. I think DTC ads can benefit society, but not when they employ questionable tactics such as this.
What do you think of DTC pharmaceutical ads such as the Jarvik spots? Are they informative and beneficial for consumers, or merely marketing hype that adds an unnecessary layer of confusion to the doctor patient relationship?
 |
