There's something that's been bugging me for a while now. Is it ethical for a Drug Company to hire a distinguished narrator from TV documentaries to do the voice-over for their commercials? Or conversely, is it ethical for narrators to lend the authority of their recognizable voices to said commercials?
Somehow this seems like "dirty pool" to me. The FTC (or some-such Federal Agency) banned actors posing as doctors from doing commercials a long time ago. Yet, when the familiar voice of a respected narrator of a Nature or National Geographic Special is touting the latest allergy remedy, it subliminally lends credence and respectability to that product in the same way.
This is just one of the ways that Big Drug Companies try to sway us into asking our doctors to prescribe the latest new drugs. The newest drugs don't have any generic counterparts yet so they can charge top dollar. This is fine-and-dandy if you have good prescription coverage. If you don't, you must stick to the lower cost generic drugs even if a newer one is more effective.
The Big Drug Companies say the high cost of new drugs is justified because of the expensive process of developing them. They gloss over the high cost of advertising said drugs on TV, magazines and newspapers--not to mention the pricey "seduction" techniques they use on the medical establishment to promote their products.
I have a friend who has been on older psychotropic drugs for some years now. They no longer have much effect. Her psychiatrist told her some of the newer drugs might help her but they're so expensive she's stuck with the kind she can get at Target for $4.
Sometimes Capitalism sucks!
ISBL Asshat of the Week: James Woods
2 hours ago