Why no US Govt. regulation of medical equipment advertising??

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Midlife - 17 Sep 2004 20:22 GMT

I have no desire to get into the discussion about Lasercope's morals or lack
therof, but this whole discussion does bring up the question of why there
appears to be a difference between the advertising of medical equipment
compared with that of pharmaceuticals in this country.

Question: Is all the side effect and other warning info included in
pharmaceutical advertising because of specific government regulation or
because corporate legal advice is that the companies need to protect
themselves against lawsuits? Or some of both?

The side effect disclosures on American TV adds for prescription medication
are getting to be almost comical. "Oily discharge"? "4 hour erections"?
Someone or something obviously insists that the public be forewarned of even
the minutiae of negative possibilities of medication even though they have
no access to meds without a trained medical professional prescribing them.

If the pharmaceutical industry is, in fact, regulated to that extent, how
does the equipment industry get a free pass?

Reply to this Message

Jim W. - 17 Sep 2004 20:52 GMT

Perhaps because the doctors who buy the medical equipment are perceived to
be not the idiots the rest of are? I imagine medical equipment sold to the
consumer is regulated or if not their lawyers make sure every possible
misuse is covered. Jim W.

> I have no desire to get into the discussion about Lasercope's morals or lack
> therof, but this whole discussion does bring up the question of why there
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> If the pharmaceutical industry is, in fact, regulated to that extent, how
> does the equipment industry get a free pass?

Reply to this Message

Midlife - 17 Sep 2004 21:39 GMT

> Perhaps because the doctors who buy the medical equipment are perceived to
> be not the idiots the rest of are? I imagine medical equipment sold to the
> consumer is regulated or if not their lawyers make sure every possible
> misuse is covered. Jim W.

I get your point, but I would think that the analogy between a Laserscope
machine and a Viagra capsule is more direct than that. In both cases the
manufacturer is advertising direct to the consumer so that he will request
the specific product. In neither case is he able to 'use' the product
without a medical professional in the equation. So....... I was wondering
if the pharmaceutical industry precautions are the result of regulation or
just self-defense.

Reply to this Message

Lee M. - 17 Sep 2004 23:45 GMT

> on 9/17/04 12:52 PM:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> if the pharmaceutical industry precautions are the result of regulation or
> just self-defense.

I think the difference is the Viagara and all the other drugs are
self-administered (even though they must be prescribed) whereas the medical
devices such as the Greenlight PVP are used (administered) by a doctor. I'm
sure Laserscope would take the position that they are just supplying basic
information about their product and it's up to the consumer to query his
doctor on possible outcomes and side effects. I'm sure the makers of
medical equipment are sued much less often than the drug companies.

Reply to this Message