Why Does the U.S. Allow T.V. Snake Oil Sellers While Other Countries Ban Them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DocN
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oil
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the presence of drug advertisements, often referred to as "snake oil" sales, on U.S. television compared to their ban in other countries. Participants explore the implications of these ads, their perceived value, and the regulatory differences between the U.S. and other nations. The conversation touches on consumer behavior, the effectiveness of advertised products, and the nature of infomercials.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the U.S. allows drug advertisements that are deemed of insignificant value to viewers, suggesting a need for public protest against such ads.
  • Others mention specific cases, such as diet pill companies fined by regulatory bodies, indicating ongoing concerns about the legitimacy of these advertisements.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of infomercials, with some participants noting that while some products may have some efficacy, they often present half-truths about their benefits.
  • One participant raises the issue of "doctor related drugs," questioning their classification and the information available about them in advertisements.
  • Concerns are expressed about the lack of clarity in Canadian drug ads compared to U.S. ads, with some participants arguing that Canadian regulations may obscure product information.
  • Participants share personal anecdotes and experiences related to drug advertisements, including humorous takes on the content and their own viewing habits.
  • Some participants assert that the presence of these ads does not compel viewers to purchase the products, suggesting that the alternative programming would be equally unvaluable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of opinions regarding the value and regulation of drug advertisements. There is no consensus on whether these ads are beneficial or detrimental, and multiple competing views remain regarding their impact on consumers and the effectiveness of the products advertised.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and classifications of certain drugs and advertisements, indicating a lack of clarity in the discussion. Additionally, there are references to specific products and regulations that may not be universally understood or agreed upon.

  • #31
You are right on!
My original question was, "Why is the U. S. about the only country that permits these ads--all other countries have banned such ads on tv?". And, how could we--the fed up tv viewers, stop them? These ads have little value to most of us.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DocN said:
You are right on!
My original question was, "Why is the U. S. about the only country that permits these ads--all other countries have banned such ads on tv?". And, how could we--the fed up tv viewers, stop them? These ads have little value to most of us.
Again, you need to supply your source of information. What countries ban ads for prescription drugs?

Also, as Moonbear pointed out, the ads are for the benefit of people that might be suffering from conditions that could benefit from these drugs.
 
  • #33
Calling them "snake oil" is a little over the top, but these types of commercials do have an effect. A doctor will probably prescribe treatment for serious illnesses on their own. Treatment for inconviences sometimes requires a little motivation.

For example, if moms take their child to a doctor to be treated for an illness and would be irate at being told to let the illness run its course, and if prescribing penicillin would at worst do no harm and might possibly do some good if the doctor was wrong about what was causing the child's illness, then why not write the prescription to get the mom out of the doctor's hair?

The same thing applies to the drugs advertised on TV. How many of them treat serious illnesses and how many treat inconveniences. The idea is to motivate the patients to motivate the doctor to treat something that the doctor didn't originally consider serious enough to bother prescribing medication for.
 
  • #34
If that was true, may desperately find a different doctor! I want my doctor to prescribe the drugs not, as you suggest, self-promulgated drug use. Anyway, this is not the question I proposed. My interest is why the U. S. is the only country that allows these tv drug ads--ads banned by all the other countries. They have little interest to the general tv viewer, in my opinon.
 
  • #35
DocN said:
If that was true, may desperately find a different doctor! I want my doctor to prescribe the drugs not, as you suggest, self-promulgated drug use. Anyway, this is not the question I proposed. My interest is why the U. S. is the only country that allows these tv drug ads--ads banned by all the other countries. They have little interest to the general tv viewer, in my opinon.
I have asked you TWICE to back up your claim and you have failed to do so.

Thread locked.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K