Homeopathy

Can *you* give me any sense of the scale of this unnecessary overprescription of children with this class of drugs.

What, from my own personal study? Of course not... this doesn't invalidate the assertion.

You have used this example to support the general idea of gross overmedication so I would hope you already know this information - and would have no need to google it - it's doesn't need to be precise (that's why I say 'any sense of the scale . . ') - just a ballpark idea of the problem as you see it.

This CNN article (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/parenting/08/29/ritalin.schools/) states:

"Government studies suggest approximately 4-million school-age children suffer from ADHD. Yet, about 20-million prescriptions were written last year for stimulant drugs, according to IMS Health, a health care information company. The number of prescriptions written for the drugs has steadily increased since 1996 when about 14-million were written."

I have not checked the sources. Im also making the assumption that the prescriptions of "stimulant drugs" were as treatment for ADHD based on the context, even though this is not explicit. There are dozens and dozens of articles on this.

The same figures are quoted here: http://www.childrentoday.com/articles/addadhd/the-great-ritalin-debate-719/

Along with reference to warnings made by the United Nations' International Narcotics Control Board regarding the dramatic increase in prescriptions.

...and another:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5308292.stm

Shit, some people even debate the existence of the condition at all.

I am always wary of any argument that makes a claim and when that claim is questioned there is a need to defer to a higher authority (in this case Google). You become a mouth piece for other people's ideas unless you can carry with you the information that forms your opinions. I also think that any idea you claim to subscribe to - you should be able to expand on, it's no good claiming the be a Conservative or a Calvinist or an environmentalist and then when asked (let's take the environmentalist as an example) "can you roughly outline the theory of anthropogenic global warming" - the best you can do is to reply "what, do you want some google links ?".

You would hope anyone claiming to be an environmentalist would have a rough idea of what it is they are supporting.

You're kidding, right? My position is ever evolving based on the collective information gleaned from numerous sources. Some sources are sound, some probably not. I make my own subjective assessment of the quality of the source and add it to the body of information contributing to that position. Im not "deferring to a higher authority". You have asked me for statistical evidence supporting my position. Do you expect me to dredge that data from my memory banks? Jesus... I left my bag on a bus today... you think Ive got that kind of brain capacity? I can cite any number of references supporting that position. Will you be able to find shortcomings with one or more elements of those sources? Probably. Your desire to challenge the convention is admirable... Its also a good way to stifle dialogue. Genuinely, I am interested in your position on this topic.

More importantly, I am a mouthpiece for no-ones opinions but my own...

Do I have information to the contrary with regard to the idea that we are grossly overmedicated ?

I have some...

Well?

So far we only have the bald assertion itself, an anecdote about your gran (which oddly shows a reduction in medication) and the Ritalin example, which you not only are unable to give a rough ballpark figure about the scale of the problem but even question having to google for further information.

It was a reduction from a previously excessive position. This was the opinion of a trained medical professional, its not something I determined myself. Im aware there are a number of ways in which my illustrative "75%" comment can be interpreted. The potential for multiple interpretations don't change the fact.

Chuck me some examples of this gross overmedication and an idea (however rough) of the scale then we have something to talk about.

See above

My position is a bit convoluted (ok, tediously boring), I am not sure you would have the patience.

Try me...

Balki : "I want to know how anyone can think its right to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer."

Personally I can't see any issue, but am open to any persuasive argument as to why it's 'wrong' to advertise prescription drugs to customers - and to be honest I have not given it much thought so I could be way wrong.

What do you think is the problem with advertising prescription drugs directly to the consumer ?

Andy and Tiswas posted stuff broadly in line with my thinking.

The better product should be administerred due to its health benefits and not because joe public thinks its better as it is advertised by there favourite pop star.

The consumer is stupid. The consumer doesn't know pharmacology and pharmacy.

tynan, get off it. Balki himself is as much evidence of gross overmedication as you'll ever need. ;p

What do you mean by overmedication? yawn

What we keep coming back to (I could be wrong here, and am picking up something that people are not intending to highlight) is an underlying sentiment that the problem (with advertising to the public / the pharmaceutical industry in general) is not poor clinical efficacy or a poor safety profile but the profits the big pharmaceutical companies make.

I am getting hints (like I say, I might be misreading this) that the problem some people have is less practical concerns and more ideological concerns. (??)

Ideological concerns with practical repercussions.

I dont have a problem with private enterprise making profits.

The whole "overmedication" business isn't really core to what I was getting at. Here is what I wanted to talk about:

the influence pharmaceutical companies have over doctors, who ultimately prescribe the medication. In Australia, it was widely percieved that sales reps from Pharmaceutical companies routinely took doctors on jollies and gave them gifts.

Im interested in the political influence exerted by pharmaceutical companies, and the possibility that profit making comes ahead of developing and distributing medication that could really change things. Im interested in how the so called "Pharma lobby" can influence prices of drugs.

I want to know how anyone can think its right to advertise prescription drugs directly to the consumer.

I've mentioned the MMA... really interesting legislation relating to the pricing of pharmaceuticals. Have you read it? There is also some interesting reading on the "revolving door" between the legislature and private enterprise across a number of industries.

In relation to the point regarding doctors being influenced by pharmaceutical companies, a 5 second google exercise reveals one of dozens of articles on the topic.. you cant read the whole of this without subscribing, but the intro has the conclusions. Its from the British Medical Journal which I'd perceive to be a reputable source.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7472/937

"The pharmaceutical industry operates in a way that puts profits before public health, members of parliament (MPs) heard last week. And the regulatory authorities, which are meant to ensure the safety of drugs and protect the public, collude with the industry, they were told.

Testimonies from five doctors and two consumer champions, who were being questioned by the health select committee for its inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, built a picture of an industry that creates health anxieties among the public to boost its profits.

At the same time, withholding unfavourable trial results and controlling what research gets published ensures that doctors get the messages that companies want to promote, the committee heard at the second public sitting of its inquiry.

Public awareness campaigns are part of a "multipronged marketing approach" that are commonly employed by drug companies to "gain further control of what drugs are being (prescribed?)"

Right or wrong, mine is hardly a controversial position. What is yours?

Throw me a bone here !!

Throw me anything! Im pretty sure that the information in those articles isn't new to you.