If you read my column earlier this week, you'll know I'm in America. If you didn't, I'm in America. In fact, I'm now in America's oldest town, St. Augustine - on Florida's Atlantic coast. And despite the temperature being in the low eighties (which is cool for Florida), I have managed to acquire a mild cold. Yes, poor me, right?
Anyway, this trivial ailment has required me to stop off at a Walgreens pharmacy (interestingly, American pharmacies sell cigarettes) to grab a remedy. Now, if you've ever been to the USA, you'll know the concept of 'choice' is all-conquering. Visit a diner and you'll be confronted with a menu longer than most Katie Price 'novels'. The same principle applies to pharmacies. Cold cures alone occupy an entire aisle, and the only way to determine which one to buy is to attempt to recall the plethora of advertisements you've seen on the TV in your hotel room. There are many, many of these.
Watching US TV, it's easy to gain the impression that the average American is a dreadful hypochondriac - and to certain extent that's true. But there's another reason for the mass of commercials for medicines flooding the television schedules: it's legal to advertise prescription drugs. In the UK, over-the-counter medications (pain-killers, cough syrups, muscle rubs) pop up quite frequently in our ad breaks. But we are not permitted to see plugs for pills and creams available only from our doctor. In the American free market, no such restriction exists. The result is a bit of a mess, to be honest.
Unfortunately for the massive pharmaceutical companies (and they are huge), American society is as keen on litigation as it is on medicine. Therefore, every ad for a prescription drug must be accompanied by an eye-watering string of disclaimers. You know those annoying, fast-speed tags at the end of financial radio ads? They start to look very tame once you've seen an American medicine commercial. Indeed, it's no exaggeration to say the disclaimers on these clips run longer than the actual sales pitch. They go something like this:
'(Drug name) can cause serious or fatal bleeding, breathlessness, fainting on standing, anxiety, confusion or sleeplessness. Do not take (drug name) if you have a history of skin conditions, an irregular heartbeat, have had a stroke, or are taking any renal or antibiotic medicines. Do not stop taking your current medication, or start taking further drugs without consulting a doctor. Ask your physician whether a prescription for (drug name) could help you.'
And so on.
Having heard all that, would you so much as consider taking the stuff? Well yes, you probably would. If you were ill enough and understood that all those nasty side-effects are almost certain not to happen and are only described as a defence against the lawyers of those who do experience them. Even if the script was off-putting, the advertising would still be worthwhile to the drug firms. There's gold in them there pills.
Globally, the pharmaceutical market is worth billions - and America represents a substantial segment of that market. Each time a physician prescribes a medicine a patient has requested, having seen an TV ad, the manufacturers stock rises slightly. Of course, it costs millions of dollars to develop a drug and bring it to the public - and many don't make it - but those advertisements are the final part of the process. They ensure the investment pays off.
In a free market, that looks like a fair deal. However, I can't help wondering whether the decisions surrounding the treatment of a patient should ever be influenced by something as crass as TV advertising and the profit motive behind it.
Magnus Shaw is a writer, blogger and consultant
