NEWS TALK RADIO Our Hosts
Powered by: Townhall.com
Sign Up
Monday, January 28, 2008
Amy Ridenour :: Townhall.com Columnist
Surf At Your Own Risk
by Amy Ridenour
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you think the President's plan to freeze interest rates on some sub prime mortgages will be successful?

Can trial lawyer advertising put your health at risk?

You wouldn't think so, but a new report by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest explains how it can happen.

It seems that trial lawyer advertising -- advertising that too often is misleadingly scary -- increasingly is dominating search engine results about the side effects of prescription drugs.

The report, "Insta-Americans: The Empowered (and Imperiled) Health Care Consumer in the Age of Internet Medicine," by Robert Goldberg, Ph.D., Peter Pitts and Caroline Patton, MA, says that eight million Americans search online for health information each day, and when they search online for prescription drug information, the results they get could scare them to death.

Only rarely are health care consumers searching for lawyers, but lawyers are searching for them.

CMPI surveyed the first thirty Google search results for Crestor, a drug treatment for cholesterol and atherosclerosis, and Avandia, a type-2 diabetes drug. "With few exceptions," says co-author Peter Pitts, "the information we found appeared legitimate but had no medical authority whatsoever. In many cases, we found lawyers posing as medical experts."

Pitts adds: "The analysis of search results revealed that online real estate was dominated by Web sites paid for and sponsored by either class action law firms or legal marketing sites searching for plaintiff referrals. Other sites were sponsored by groups or individuals selling 'alternatives.'"

CMPI says public fears about the side effects of antidepressants in teens may have played a role in an increase in youth suicides.

Medical science doesn't yet know what causes autism, but you can't tell that from some trial lawyer websites, which encourage parents of autistic children to call for free "vaccine injury consultations" or claim outright that "the brains of children who have autism have been injured by lead paint, other environmental toxins, medical negligence, and/or other insults."

"Do you want to know what caused your child's autism? For a free consultation about autism and birth injuries with an experienced lawyer...," trumpets a website for a New York law firm.

Some of this hyperbole is medically harmless -- although frivolous lawsuits against doctors raise health care costs and have caused shortages of medical services in some areas -- but exaggerating the link between vaccinations and autism can make parents more afraid of vaccines than the diseases the vaccines prevent, with potentially dangerous consequences.

In 2003, I wrote about state Medicaid programs cutting access to the newer forms of schizophrenia drugs, such as Eli Lily's Zyprexa and Janssen's Risperdal, after trial lawyers filed lawsuits alleging that these valuable drugs may increase a patient's risk of developing diabetes. Never mind that the often crippling, even dangerous, effects of schizophrenia are well-established, and the link to diabetes was merely a theory.

In 2004, during a controversy in Mississippi over whether local TV stations should run trial lawyer ads recruiting plaintiffs for Zyprexa and Risperdal lawsuits, mental health professionals told the Biloxi Sun-Herald that patients had had to be recommitted after not taking their medications.

"People see these ads and they think that [Zyprexa and Risperdal are] bad for them, so they quit taking them," Teri Breister, executive director of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill in Mississippi, told the Sun-Herald. The paper reported that Breister "said she has heard of at least five people who have been recommitted after stopping the medications. Mental health professionals in Jackson, Hattiesburg and on the Coast have all expressed concerns about the ads, she said." Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Subject: Human Guinea Pigs that Sue
When the government subsidized these companies I knew they would get sued for it. That was one of my reasons for not subsidizing the pharmaceutical companies.
Human Guinea Pigs that Sue vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

SJ Doc
Please understand that I was asking my question from known ignorance. I really do not know the law in that regard, and do not claim to. When I speak of the malfeasance of a doctor, I mean to include only those very VERY few who do things like write prescriptions to athletes for steroids because the doctor is on the take from Balco or some such. As with any profession you have the good, the bad, and the ugly, and I, in no way intend either with my question or in any future comment to impeach the character of the medical profession in general or any doctor in particular (save for those for whom there is evidence of severe abuses). Getting angry for my infering that some doctors intentionally abuse the system and their positions was unnecessary. It happens. It's extraordinarily rare, but it happens.

You did answer my question about using drugs for purposes other than their original, approved intent, and I appreciate that.

You and I also have a shared opinion of the FDA, though I've noticed that the times they do press things through quickly it always seems to be drugs like Fenphen (the full name for which I do not know) that famously caused significant cardiovascular problems.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*