Ask Your Doctor

Is it just me, or is the pharmaceutical industry trying too hard? It seems impossible these days to watch any television program without seeing a commercial for a drug that promises to somehow make your life radically better. Of course, the most obvious of these are the “erectile dysfunction” commercials (as if men don’t have enough anxiety about sexual performance already). Oddly, in spite of billions in industry profits, I don’t know a single male friend or acquaintance who admits to taking the “little blue pill.” Clearly, all of these drugs are manufactured for export to less sexually potent countries…

But at least erectile dysfunction drugs do have a rather obvious purpose. I’m more concerned about the television advertising that introduces the name of a drug, but says nothing about what it does or what condition it claims to treat. “Ask your doctor” is the only advice one receives. This is due to the FCC’s prohibition on discussion the benefits of a medication on the air without disclosing its side affects. Doctors must be getting annoyed at the increasing frequency of men asking about treatments for menopause symptoms and the like.

The worst cases seem to be those medications for which the industry needs to invent a disease. It is a wonder that the American public isn’t more panicked about the sudden proliferation of new and scary-sounding conditions like “peripheral artery disease” (which used to just be called “poor circulation”), or “social anxiety disorder” (previously known as “shyness”). But, have no fear! We now seem to have a pill for everything. In fact, we seem to have pills for which a condition needs to be developed, along with an expensive and glitzy marketing campaign with lots of active, healthy people whose lives have been miraculously snatched from the jaws of despair.

As concerned Americans, we should do our part. I think it is our patriotic duty to support the pharmaceutical industry by coming up with some new medical conditions for the plethora of pills. Clearly, nobody wants a disease that could actually kill you, so we need to define a host of new maladies that are bothersome and perhaps embarrassing, but not truly dangerous. These can be completely new conditions, or the creative re-naming of mundane departures from physical and mental perfection. Here are a few to start:

Suboptimal Cognitive Disorder (formerly “stupidity”)
Alcohol Toxicity Processing Syndrome (formerly “hangover”)
Parental Defiance Disorder (common in toddlers)
Pixel Fixation Syndrome (unhealthy attachment to video games)
Responsibility Avoidance Disorder (30-somethings living in parents’ basements)

Oh, and if the industry could develop a pill to take out the hiccups, that would be nice.

The truth is that the pharmaceutical industry does, in fact, create through the research and hard work of dedicated professionals a host of medications that improve and extend life. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing the hijacking of the industry by public relations firms and unbridled corporate greed. Creating a market has surpassed saving lives and relieving suffering as the top priority. In the process, Americans are becoming increasingly paranoid about their health, and this is fueled by the already rampant ‘victim mentality’ in our culture. We increasingly define ourselves by how we have been wronged, either by others or by the cruel fate of some random medical condition.

There are people out there who are actually ill, and who need medical care and appropriate medications. They should get the help and treatment that they need. As for the rest of us, it is time to take out our BS detectors. Don’t let the drug companies talk you into having some sort of syndrome or disorder. The happy people cavorting in sunny fields with attractive mates and well-adjusted children in the pharmaceutical ads, I’m sorry to say, aren’t real. For goodness’ sake, they are ACTORS! After shooting the commercial, they most likely washed down a few anti-depressants with a martini at a local bar. Unless, of course, they are into Scientology, but that’s a whole different illness…

-PMÓS

Broken Record

Perhaps, in this age, the metaphor should be "skipping CD." At any rate, President Bush's speech this morning was an abysmal disappointment, offering little more than the same vacuous flag waving and lack of a clear vision for a definable and attainable end state in Iraq. In truth, this speech could have been delivered last month, last year, or shortly after the invasion of Iraq. At this point, however, "trust me, we're doing important things" is wearing a bit thin.

The Bush Administration still insists on blurring the lines between Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq - certainly distinct groups. In a remarkable fallacy of logic, Bush offered the vision of an Iraq headed by Osama bin Laden or his lieutenants. Ironically, as slim as the chance of an Iraqi terrorist state is now, it is still greater than the chance of such a state under Saddam Hussein, who despised Islamic fundamentalism, and actively suppressed it.

It is well worth remembering the constant parade of reasons offered for the war in Iraq. First, we were told that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. Next, the presence of weapons of mass destruction was advanced as the principal reason for invading (complete with Secretary of State Colin Powell "making the case" at the UN - a case we now know was based on poor intelligence). Additional reasons were offered, as well. Remember the suggestion that an invasion of Iraq would provide a free-flowing supply of relatively inexpensive oil? Have you filled up your SUV at the gas station lately?

So, once again, Mr. Bush is telling us that this is a war worth fighting and winning - that it is crucial for the safety and security of the United States. Let us hope so. We have sacrificed 1943 US military lives on that premise, with nearly 15,000 wounded. Meanwhile, we have pitifully under supported military efforts in Afghanistan, resulting in a stalemate, with casualties among US troops there recently spiking, and with regional warlords carving up their spheres of influence through a flawed election process (and most probably a good measure of intimidation). And, of course, the opium trade continues to line the pockets of these same petty dictators, while in part supporting the very Taliban US forces initially came to oust.

In one respect, Mr. Bush is right. We cannot 'cut and run' in Iraq. Although peace activists would relish this, the damage to our already battered credibility would be significant. And this is the most sickening aspect of the Bush legacy. We have little choice but to keep enough troops piled on the lid of Pandora's box, attempting to avert civil war. Odds of long-term success are not good, but perhaps that is a secondary consideration. The American public is not likely to support an open-ended occupation of Iraq, or "military assistance" to the tune of 140,000 troops for the next decade. The present administration seems to be betting that they can at least talk the American people into supporting it through November 2008.

-PMÓS