You're kidding, right?

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
A doctor who is willing to recieve payment for the drugs he prescribes is not a doctor that i'd ever want to go to.

In EU the drugs are cheaper (some drugs are 1/10th of what you pay over there) because our system does not allow that sort of thing, if a doctor prescribes one drug, whatever drug, then the pharmacy will exchange that drug for the cheapest available drug with the same effective ingredient, no one except the patient, the pharmacy and the doctor will ever know what drugs are prescribed, what amount and when.

Advertising prescription drugs with misleading statements does not fall under free speech for obvious (at least to me) reasons.

I am not talking about advertisements with lies.

Statements that are KNOWN to be false are always lies and that is pretty much everything but claiming just plainly stating what is on the insert including the side effects, untold information is also a form of a lie. Normally this doesn't matter, but in this case it really does because it's a potentially harmful drug (as all drugs that have any effect are).

I really don't get how all of this works though and i'll admit that, how on earth do you trust a doctor that will prescribe you expensive potentially harmful medication to get more money?

There is untold information on everything. Advertisements are not encloypedias.

You cannot purchase prescriptions drugs without a doctor, so there is already a level of protection from harm.

The "protection" you'll receive is that the doctor will make more money the more unneeded drugs he'll prescribe, i guess that resistant bacteria isn't all that much of a surprise anymore when doctors get paid to prescribe antibiotics for everything and anything, right?

I have no idea what an ecncoypedia is but if commercials are allowed to lie about potentially life threatening medication, it's just not a form of free speech that is protected in the US or anywhere else, i think even you get that if you think about it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
CanOfWorms, "We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights. "

The irony is so thick i could cut it with a knife.

I can cut this with a spoon.

Though I guess in the UK, I would have to ammend it to that the Queen is the only one allowed to have rights.

Nice, i guess that is the best you can do?

We still have the right to talk in private, to wear t-shirts saying what the feck we want them to say and to insult our leaders in public.

So while we may not have enough freedoms we certainly have more than you guys.

Sorry, I disagree.

I'm having a discussion with a five year old, at least that is what it feels like.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
A doctor who is willing to recieve payment for the drugs he prescribes is not a doctor that i'd ever want to go to.

In EU the drugs are cheaper (some drugs are 1/10th of what you pay over there) because our system does not allow that sort of thing, if a doctor prescribes one drug, whatever drug, then the pharmacy will exchange that drug for the cheapest available drug with the same effective ingredient, no one except the patient, the pharmacy and the doctor will ever know what drugs are prescribed, what amount and when.

Advertising prescription drugs with misleading statements does not fall under free speech for obvious (at least to me) reasons.

I am not talking about advertisements with lies.

Statements that are KNOWN to be false are always lies and that is pretty much everything but claiming just plainly stating what is on the insert including the side effects, untold information is also a form of a lie. Normally this doesn't matter, but in this case it really does because it's a potentially harmful drug (as all drugs that have any effect are).

I really don't get how all of this works though and i'll admit that, how on earth do you trust a doctor that will prescribe you expensive potentially harmful medication to get more money?

There is untold information on everything. Advertisements are not encloypedias.

You cannot purchase prescriptions drugs without a doctor, so there is already a level of protection from harm.

The "protection" you'll receive is that the doctor will make more money the more unneeded drugs he'll prescribe, i guess that resistant bacteria isn't all that much of a surprise anymore when doctors get paid to prescribe antibiotics for everything and anything, right?

Perhaps the doctors should have some morals then. They do swear an oath.

I have no idea what an ecncoypedia is but if commercials are allowed to lie about potentially life threatening medication, it's just not a form of free speech that is protected in the US or anywhere else, i think even you get that if you think about it.

I'm talking about lie-free commercials. I've already said that multiple times.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

I'm having a discussion with a five year old, at least that is what it feels like.

That's what I was thinking, too.

Centuries of colonialism and the peasantry/royalty caste structure have really messed up the UK.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Many people will tell you that the FDA is too tight when it comes to drugs. That is one reason why drugs cost so much, because it takes so long and costs so much to bring them to market.

Don't count me as part of that "many people." I remember the thalomide babies.

But do count me in the camp to ban Rx drug advertising in popular media/TV. It is inherently misleading and grossly distorts drug "demand." We got along fine without such ads for years and years. The only good that ever came out of such advertising was four hour erection jokes.

Edit: Thank you Bailbabydoc, for the very clear explanation early in this thread.