On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:12:49 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Thu, 15 May 2008 20:41:13 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:12:11 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:58:45 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is true of many drugs in general, IMHO.
>>>>
>>> Yup, at least here in the USA. Every drug has a theme and a catchy new
>>> name for a disorder that's been around for a long time. But the one
>>> with the catchiest words gets prescribed.
>>
>> Yeah, and that's a huge societal problem.
> 
> Just because the people being advertised at have no ability to make an
> objective choice over these medications doesn't mean they shouldn't be
> advertised in the same way as shampoo or washing powder. Just as for
> them if the product doesn't work for you just switch; no harm done
> right? [cough]

Heh, better watch out, your sarcasm tags are showing, Phil. ;-)

>> My wife wanted to bitch-slap her for that....How can you not hug your
>> own kid?
> 
> At times you have to wonder how many of these 'disorders' are parentally
> caused.

Yes, though a lot of times knowing both the parent and the kid makes that 
very, um, apparent. ;-)

> <snip>
>> But the thing that really disturbs me is the advertising "ask your
>> doctor if Vaxodrine is right for you" - why SHOULD I?  Is that why my
>> DOCTOR is my DOCTOR?  He's the one who went to medical school, not me.
> 
> Ah but your doctor may be in the pay of an evil anti-Vaxodrine company,
> it's your choice, nay right, to be given the medication that spends the
> most on advertising.

And now we know where all our money goes when we pay for our 
perscriptions. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message