Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday May 24 2017, @09:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the almost-like-advertising-is-the-raison-d'être dept.

This year on General Hospital, central character Anna Devane is stricken with a rare and life-threatening type of blood cancer. Gasp! OK, this may not be shocking; dramatic, unlikely, and always tragic events are the norm on soap operas. But this one is a little different.

Prior to the tear-jerking diagnosis, the ABC daytime drama—the longest running soap opera in the US—made a deal with a pharmaceutical company to come up with her fate. And the company, Incyte Corporation, just so happens to make the only targeted therapy for fictional Anna's very real form of cancer. This did not sit well with two doctors.

In an opinion piece published this week in JAMA, Sham Mailankody of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Vinay Prasad of Oregon Health & Science University systematically question the intent of the promotion. The piece ends with a call to arms to medical policy makers and regulators to try to stamp out these "creative" promotions.

These promotions have "tangible effects on health care behavior and can lead to unintended consequences, including wasteful diagnostic testing, overdiagnosis, and inappropriate therapy," the pair argue. "The status quo appears increasingly untenable: direct-to-consumer advertising is a massive medical intervention with unproven public health benefit, dubious plausibility, and suggestive evidence of harm."

Source: Ars Technica

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by arcz on Wednesday May 24 2017, @10:17PM (6 children)

    by arcz (4501) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @10:17PM (#515148) Journal

    Professional speech restrictions are ready to go the way of the dinosaur. Cry foul all you want, but this is a perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to do away with them once and for all.

    It's time for us to recognize that advertising is still speech.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday May 24 2017, @11:37PM (4 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @11:37PM (#515195)

    I'll bite ... I know who's gonna violently disagree already.
    Pretty much every non-US social agreement includes restrictions on the freedom of speech (the US also does, though they are the smallest I'm aware of).
    Besides enforcing a certain form of polite cohabitation between people of various opinions, those restrictions do try to prevent harmful speech, where "harmful" can either be in the eye of the beholder, or in some cases a clear scientifically established fact...

    In the era of polarized politics, the Internet, and mass under-employment, absolute free speech , while desirable, is proving to be too powerful for us silly humans to handle safely and keep living together.

    Some regulars like to repeat their mantra that an armed society is a polite society, but Americans shoot each other more than any other "advanced" country on the planet. Unrestricted free speech is wonderful against government oppression, but for citizen against each other, it's turning into the equivalent of people riding around with tactical nukes.

    Feel free to constructively disagree.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @11:57PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @11:57PM (#515204)

      Pretty much every non-US social agreement includes restrictions on the freedom of speech (the US also does, though they are the smallest I'm aware of).

      The vast majority of which are simply insane. Also, the US is only a bit better by comparison; it's still terrible when it comes to free speech. The US has obscenity laws, arrests people over bomb jokes, and still has things like FCC censorship. A lot of these restrictions restrict sexual content in certain contexts, which I hope you could agree is simply insane.

      Besides enforcing a certain form of polite cohabitation between people of various opinions

      What, specifically, are you referring to here?

      where "harmful" can either be in the eye of the beholder, or in some cases a clear scientifically established fact...

      There is no justification for restricting speech based on "harm" that is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

      In the era of polarized politics, the Internet, and mass under-employment, absolute free speech , while desirable, is proving to be too powerful for us silly humans to handle safely and keep living together.

      In this case, any free speech restrictions would be designed to prevent incredibly unintelligent people who apparently believe everything they hear in soap operas and elsewhere from forming undesirable conclusions. I don't see how that's justifiable, since it's their problem for taking fiction so seriously.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:23AM (1 child)

        by kaszz (4211) on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:23AM (#515218) Journal

        The vast majority of which are simply insane. Also, the US is only a bit better by comparison; it's still terrible when it comes to free speech. The US has obscenity laws, arrests people over bomb jokes, and still has things like FCC censorship. A lot of these restrictions restrict sexual content in certain contexts, which I hope you could agree is simply insane.

        While deplorable in many aspects. The basis seems to be sound. A lot of countries have various insane restrictions. A lot of important issues are not about sex or bomb jokes. But about the state of a country etc.

        In this case, any free speech restrictions would be designed to prevent incredibly unintelligent people who apparently believe everything they hear in soap operas and elsewhere from forming undesirable conclusions. I don't see how that's justifiable, since it's their problem for taking fiction so seriously.

        It may spill over onto other people that do make intelligent decisions as the effect of the actions of less smart people may have on others. Let them have spam for Las Vegas gaming etc.. less harmful.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @07:25AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @07:25AM (#515338)

          While deplorable in many aspects. The basis seems to be sound.

          Sound? Restricting people's fundamental right to free speech simply because you're offended by something is not "sound".

          A lot of important issues are not about sex or bomb jokes. But about the state of a country etc.

          What does that even mean? You're not making any sense. Are you saying that because sex and bomb jokes aren't "important" to you, that protecting those forms of free speech is therefore not very important? What you find "important" or not is subjective. All free speech is necessarily important to people who care about freedom and principles. If you disagree, then you don't really care about free speech at all, but instead care about speech pertaining to subjects you personally approve of.

          In the US, such restrictions are 100% unconstitutional, so that's another reason to care about it.

          It may spill over onto other people that do make intelligent decisions as the effect of the actions of less smart people may have on others.

          Sounds like the problem is still that people believe whatever they hear. You're not even actually fixing the underlying problem by restricting speech; instead, you're only hiding it in a specific context.

    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday May 25 2017, @05:16PM

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Thursday May 25 2017, @05:16PM (#515558)

      Feel free to constructively disagree.

      I will take you up on this.

      "is proving to be too powerful for us silly humans to handle safely and keep living together."

      Do the words, "He who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and will lose both" mean anything to you?

      Also do the words, "Give me Liberty or give me death." have any meaning to you?

      Because those were words that the United States was founded on - such an experiment like the world has never seen - which has, perhaps in your mind coincidentally - generally advanced the state of the world beyond what any other country has ever individually done. I would argue that it is not coincidence. Our Constitution maintains its position as the longest-standing continuous system of governance of any advanced nation. I would argue that this is also not coincidence.

      So, should you be of the belief that a diversity of ideas and peoples results in the most successful projects, I would then wonder about the opinion you state here, which is that the United States should be more like other countries which already exist, which already make their contributions, and which already push the "social experiment" of differing societies in those other directions - in search of the optimal one.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @08:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @08:00AM (#515347)

    So, where would you draw the line then? Is lying about your product allowed speech? Is emotional manipulation allowed speech? Is chemical manipulation allowed speech? Is subliminal messaging allowed speech? Is blackmail allowed speech? Is bartering at gunpoint allowed speech? Should ammunition be the new national currency?