Thank you for participating in our online poll.

Click here to see our previous polls, or go to your main page.

Poll: Do you think prescription drugs should be advertised directly to Irish consumers, e.g. on television?

* Please note that the results of the online poll represent just a snapshot of opinion from the site members who participate. The results of each poll do not necessarily represent the national picture. Participants are only allowed to vote once in each poll.

Philip(UFE28125)  Posted: 03/05/2005 22:20

There's no need for it, the most it will do is raise the companies who make the products income!!

Anonymous   Posted: 04/05/2005 09:42

People believe in placebo's. The moment all these stronger drugs for more serious matters come to eye, people will want to start taking them and not believe in the regular anymore.

Anonymous   Posted: 04/05/2005 10:47

Absolutely - we get ripped off all the time with medicines. With advertising, we'd know more about what is available.

John(johnwilliams)  Posted: 04/05/2005 21:53

NO. The only country of which I am aware where this form of direct advertising is allowed is the USA. The FDA (Food & Drug Administration) agreed to allow it, a few years ago on the naive belief that 'competition' would lead to cheaper medicines. The opposite happened. The drug companies advertised their products like other consumer items and pushed their brand names in the media. This had the effect, according to the FDA, of pushing up the price of branded drugs by about 10% and virtually abolishing the generic brands. The FDA has indicated that it would like to change the law back, to prevent this direct form of advertising but the genie is out of the bottle. The multinational pharmaceutical giants will use their clout with Bush to make sure it doesn't happen. Incidently, it is interesting to read the language of the question. Sick people, in dire need of medicine,are referred to as 'consumers'.

David(DHM16758)  Posted: 05/05/2005 13:03

According to a recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association: "Doctors are more apt to prescribe a psychiatric drug for patients who ask for medicine than for those who have the same symptoms but don't request a drug, according to a study by UC Davis researchers that examines the influence of pharmaceutical advertising. The study authors also found that direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs can be a double-edged sword: Although television and other ads can foster appropriately prescribed drugs, they also can lead to use of drugs for conditions that may not benefit from them or that pose unnecessary risks." See http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/16/1995?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=drug+advertising&searchid=1115294462982_780&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama for more details. This clearly shows that drugs should not be advertised to end-users, or for that matter, to Doctors. Doctors should prescribe drugs on the basis of efficacy in outcome as published in peer-reviewed, double-blind studies, not on how big the advertising budget of the drug company is, or how many gifts it buys for Doctors.

siobhan(sgaynor)  Posted: 05/05/2005 13:46

I don't see waht benefit it would be to the consumer as advertising usually implies marketing rather than scientific info and therefore difficult to know true benefits vs risks of medicine

Anonymous   Posted: 05/05/2005 14:26

Problem is, currently, we are living in a society that expects quick fixes - people expect that everything can be cured immediately. This form of marketing reinforces that view. We have become an instant gratification society

Matthew(manolan)  Posted: 05/05/2005 14:28

A relaxation in advertising regulations would enable only the larger forms to compete and squeeze out less profitable - and possibly more effective - alternative medicines. It is hard to see where the real patient benefit is.

liam(lcollins)  Posted: 06/05/2005 01:11

all prescription drugs should be available to all who want them. we are turning into a nanny state.

colm(pulsar)  Posted: 06/05/2005 20:08

I voted no because competitive advertising is always uncertain for the consumer and with medicine one doesn't want to make a mistake. Besides, Doctors who are the only people allowed to write presciptions, are being paid to make the choice of drug and we don't expect them to put price before our health. Maybe some umbrella medical body should randomly check doctors prescirption lists to ensure that they spread their choice of drug over a 'reasonable selection'.

Paul(pmcniffe)  Posted: 07/05/2005 00:56

Why should they advertise. I trust my doctor when he prescribes me my tablets. Anyway would not the fact that these companies are now advertising there drugs that we can only, or are meant to get on prescription put up the cost of the drugs. They are expensive enough already.

Anonymous   Posted: 07/05/2005 21:46

If you have a medical condition it\\\'s easy to find which meds are available using the Internet. In addition, we often hear of new drugs because of their success in clinical trials - mind you, cash-rich drug companies do pay their PR firm to push such results to us. Indeed, these companies have so much money dedicated to marketing that they would love to spend it advertising their drugs to us - no thanks though, I think I\\\'ll let my GP make up his mind.

liam(lcollins)  Posted: 09/05/2005 00:42

in advertising drugs directly to the consumers, this does not mean that they can buy them directly form the manufactures , does it, so why advertise in the first place.

quyquivuse  Posted: 11/05/2005 13:47

Prescription drugs should not, in my opinion, be advertised on television and doctors should not prescribe particular makes in acknowledgement of free holidays camouflaged as medical conventions or other gifts. It should be the exception rather than the rule that the pharmacist manually packs the drugs. The drugs should normally be pre-packed by the manufacturer with the expiry date on the packet. The side effects of the medicines should be clearly indicated as well as the ingredients.

Anonymous   Posted: 12/05/2005 16:40

One feature of market failure is information assymetry - where one party has much more knowledge than the other. Clearly, an open prescription medicines market will fail patients because we don't have enough knowledge of medicines or diseases. Medicines are poisons used in a controlled manner to treat specific conditions. We cannot buy and use medicines safely without expert advice ie doctors diagnosing and prescribing and pharmacists dispensing. In other words, in an open drugs market, or even in an open promotional market, there is a very unequal relationship between the seller and the buyer, and only one possible loser - the patient. Anyone who tells you otherwise either has drug company shares or no understanding of market economics.

Anonymous   Posted: 16/05/2005 09:43

Anonymous, medicines are not poisons or toxins.

Anonymous   Posted: 17/05/2005 14:50

To Anonymous, 16.05 - prescription medicines are poisons, which is why they are subject to such strict controls over production and supply, so that the beneficial effects are available without the toxic ones ie they can be used safely.

Anonymous   Posted: 17/05/2005 15:50

You state: prescription medicines are poisons . . . the beneficial effects are available without the toxic ones. Now either they are toxix i.e. poisonous or they are not??

Anonymous   Posted: 17/05/2005 16:26

Pretty much everything is poisonous in sufficient quantities eg oxygen in high concentrations, alcohol, paracetomol. 400 cups of coffee is, apparently, a lethal dose. It would have been clearer to say "...so that the beneficial effects outweigh any toxic ones...". As an analogy, having a glass of whisky has, for fans, a clear beneficial effect without any noticeable short term side effects from the alcohol - however, if you drink a whole bottle, it is clear to all that the toxic outweigh the beneficial effects at that dose. Of course, some medicines with very strong side effects are used (eg cancer or some fertility drugs, or some of the new enzyme deficiency treatments) because the hoped-for benefit for the patient is seen to outweigh even very significant side effects, or to not treat is worse than the side effects. Sometimes, the side effects far outweigh the benefits, as for thalidomide. Generally, medicines become dangerous for us at very low doses - well before, unlike alcohol, we get any warning signs that make us stop ingesting any more - so it is almost impossible, without clear guidance, to avoid overdosing. However, if you don't want to believe that medicines are poisons used in a controlled manner, and all medicines have side effects over a certain dosage, then nothing I say here will convince you.

Anonymous   Posted: 19/05/2005 13:31

As a recovering addict, i was addicted to perscribed drugs in particular a drug called xanax. It's from a family of drugs known as Benzodiazepines or commonly known as tranquilisers. They controlled my life, where i went how i got there, how long i stayed, how i got home. If i could have got them which you can in the states via the Internet i would probably be dead right now.In certain cases these drugs are very beneficial to a person but ONLY FOR 2 – 3 WEEKS because these drugs are SO ADDICTIVE. When we are in pain we look for the easy way out and drugs are the easy way out but before we know if we're addicted. Thanks God today I'm not another statistic, from a very grateful recovering Drug Addict.

Anonymous   Posted: 19/05/2005 14:34

Of course medecines have side effectrs over a certain dose, but if you don't read the label when you get it from the doctor / pharmacy, then what makes you think direct advertising would make any difference?

hermon(KFI11496)  Posted: 19/05/2005 18:19

No. I think that prescription drugs must not be advertised. To my knouledge such advertisment are legal in US.

Anonymous   Posted: 19/05/2005 20:45

Prescribed drugs should not be advertised on television, radio or magazines. What would be of more benefit to consumers of the medical industry would be more educational documentries about side effects and interactions than advertising. Of course if people were more aware of these issues and of the fact that there is a natural solution to almost all illnesses then the drug companies would lose out, doctors would have more time to research about the drugs they are prescribing and less free holidays.

Anonymous   Posted: 20/05/2005 08:39

Hermnon, I'm not sure what you are a doctor of or even if you're practising medecine here but such adverts are NOT illegal in he U.S. - as you would know if you had been reading the posts.

Kathy(Kathy55)  Posted: 20/05/2005 16:40

hmmm Hermnon said "To my knouledge such advertisment are legal in US" not that they are illegal. Sure isn't it as a result of the success of advertising prescription medications to the US public that Ireland would consider allowing such advertising - after all prescription medication sales in the USA are huge as a result of such advertising, so considering the impact on increased sales the pharmaceutical companies would love to increase their sales here and in other countries by public advertising. We are in a "monkey see, monkey do society" here in Ireland.

Anonymous   Posted: 23/05/2005 08:48

Anan, don't you think that if there was a natural solution to most illnesses, doctors and consumers would've harnessed it by now.

To join the discussion, register by clicking here