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]

>>> Just look at the number of Ritalin scripts written in the 90's in the
>>> US.  Many of the kids who this (or other ADD-"fighting" drugs) was
>>> prescribed for didn't actually need it.
<snip>
> 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.

<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.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message