Will Congress Curb Viagra Ads?
Citing indecency, Representative James Moran is circulating a bill in the House that proposes banning ads for sexual aids such as Viagra and Levitra from primetime television. Entitled the "Families for ED Advertising Decency Act", the legislation asks the Federal Communications Commission to designate ads for male enhancement or erectile dysfunction drugs indecent, though it does not bar product placement.
Additionally, New York Representative Jerrold Nadler introduced the "Say No to Drug Ads Act" in June. It calls for Internal Revenue Code to be amended to prevent tax deductions for direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication.
Nadler says that although he believes there won't be a ban on drug ads, he thinks the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for them.
Critics say the commercials prompt consumers to pressure their doctors into prescribing name-brand medication for a disease that may or may not be related to the actual symptoms, according to the Times.
"You should not be going to a doctor saying, 'I have restless leg syndrome' — whatever the hell that is — or going to a doctor saying, 'I have the mumps,' " Nadler told the newspaper. "You should not be diagnosed by some pitchman on TV who doesn't know you whatsoever."
Critics also tie the spots to what they consider a flawed health care system, one that encourages patients to ask for expensive, brand name prescriptions over cheaper generic pills.
Julie Donahue of the University of Pittsburgh told the Times that while such ads may promote self-diagnoses, academic studies indicate they are a useful method of communication and can encourage people who have conditions to seek treatment.
Another concern for lawmakers is that the long-term effects of certain medications may not immediately be known. Representative Henry Waxman favors postponing ads for new FDA approved drugs until such effects can be known.
"Five years later, they say it causes blindness, and now you're in trouble," University of California professor Prasad Naik told the Times.
Congress has considered stripping tax benefits from direct-to-consumer advertising in effort to pay for the health care overhaul. But lawmakers concluded that not enough money could be made from this effort, according to president of the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America Billy Tauzin.
Those who seek restrictions on advertising also have the first amendment to contend with. Tauzin said such measures never survive due to their possible infringement on free speech.