The official website for the drug Olanzapine probably didn’t mention the fact it might cause diabetic symptoms in patients. Another website obviously did. Commercials on TV now are required to mention possible side effects. Should drug companies be required to come clean about situations like the one with Eli Lilly’s Olanzapine in their commercial websites? Why or why not?
I think drug companies should be required to come clean about all side effects and possible/suspected side effects of a drug on their web sites, but I don't think discussing each legal situation is necessary (although issuing a brief statement about such legal issues would probably be wise). As the internet becomes ingrained into the fabric of society, it used more and more as a "first step" and many times the only step in acquiring information. If someone wants relief of a disorder, in this case Schizophrenia, they may start with the internet and hold to that information when seeing a doctor. If they don't read a side effect the doctor mentions in passing, it may go in one ear and out the other.
The doctor also may not know every recent controversy over every drug they prescribe (that's a little scary to think about, but for general doctors especially that would mean researching tons of drugs daily which probably doesn't happen). The prescription inserts are made in bulk on paper and then the prescription may be stored in a pharmacy, warehouse, or your medicine cabinet for weeks or months before it is used. How can these listed side effects be guaranteed accurate? They really can't. A website, however, can be updated in the matter of a few seconds (depending, of course, on the amount of change and speed of browser). By requiring companies to post information about suspected side effects (that have a fairly legitimate/documented claim) help consumers truly discover the known risks of the medications they are taking at any point in taking the drug (not just when they are first prescribed it or it is first manufactured.
The legal information however is probably so numerous and dull that most people wouldn't bother reading it all. I personally don't care so much about who sued the drug company and for how much, but about what side effect caused them to press charges. Mentioning their was a lawsuit (or multiple law suits) during a particular time frame for a certain reason would probably alleviate confusion when also coming across sites that discuss such charges, like the documents released on the web about Olanzapine and the suspected side effects of diabetes.
What should the rule be for folks who are posting online (since it's so easy) about their experience with these drugs?
ReplyDeleteIs the average consumer going to know that folks who are sharing their experiences of taking a particular drug may be not honest?
What does this say about the web in general, if we depend upon it to make decisions, like those for health?
I don't think there would be a way to make rules for people posting their experiences with drugs online without raising cases about violating First Amendment Rights. It would be nice if everything online about drug side effects was truthful and verified or at least suggested (as would be the case with possible side effects) by a medical professional, but there is no way to regulate that. There is no way for the average consumer to know if these "experiences" are honest.
ReplyDeleteI think the web is becoming a default decision maker for many people which I think is a little unnerving because you can't tell what is true and what is not. Everyone should go to their trusted doctors to make health decisions, but since lately "public opinion" from the web can outweigh medical professionals, I think drug company sites should be honest about side effects and issues with their medication to counteract lies that others post online.