I’d like to shed light on the consumerization of the psychopharmaceutical industry regarding the objectifying of patients as consumers and the dangerous influences medication advertisements can have on the public.
My inspiration for this exploratory essay is the emergence of commercials advertising psychopharmaceuticals not completely unlike advertisements for lifestyle products such as housing developments, vitamins and supplements and clothing. These medications are indeed “lifestyle” supporting, in every sense of the word and may be the only legitimate lifestyle pitch of them all, however the advertisements do not address much of the subjective experience of the patient/consumer.
Some things of note that need to be deconstructed are the vagueness of the diagnosis portrayed that one would need or have to be prescribed said medications. We can parse out the symptoms and judge from the visuals what life would be before and after them and sometimes the disclaimer will mention, briefly, the diagnosis or diagnoses that warrant such a treatment.
Next, the objective of these advertisements seems to be convincing us, the consumer, regardless of whether or not we need the medication, life would be somehow better, again, regardless of the current occurrence of symptoms at present, if we consumed the medication. This may or may not be applicable and can certainly be seen as deceptive given the exaggeration of the outcomes of treatment, the generalization of the typical patient and the idealism of illness/recover narratives being displayed.
Last, I want to address the suggested paucity for the information these commercials present. It seems the industry proposes that certain psychopharmaceutical knowledge is being withheld, hidden or otherwise out of reach of the patient/consumer and in doing so may imply they are a resource to the patient community, however small and unvoiced. The presence of advertisements for medications that sometimes only apply to very small percentages of the population in mainstream media is concerning. Take bipolar disorder. The antipsychotics often prescribed for said condition are not always appropriate for 100% of the patients. The very existence of diagnosed individuals is generally near 2.5% of the population. Does it seem a good use of money to advertise for a product only 2.5% of the population needs during primetime TV? I argue not. What other products are advertised that would only speak to that small sect? (Seriously, let me know some examples you come up with as I wish my argument to address all instances of flaw). There exists a disconnect between money invested by pharmaceutical companies and the amount of people that need the given product however the concept of the discovered patient makes this connection a little stronger.
The discovered patient allowed the advertisements to suggest their diagnosis. It is the company that helped them identify with their illnesses and going to the doctor to get the diagnosis and prescription is just a formality. This puts a lot of weight and responsibility on the practitioners of already one of the most inexact science there is.
One would think a company would lose massive amounts of money investing so casually. That is, of course, if motive was missing. The catch here is patients are aimed to be created, thus turning into consumers. As unethical as that sounds, the ways in which these companies make money, and they do, a lot of it, is the hopes that those 2.5% will be reached (although I have a serious of arguments addressing the access both patient/consumers and companies have to each other, which may be dissected at a later date), in addition to some that will think they are part of that 2.5%. Logic suggests that these non-patients then go to their doctor, address whatever symptoms that may match up with the commercials and mention the “new miracle pill” that they heard about. Since it’s new, it must be good right? The people and/or lives portrayed in the commercials are examples, so we are told, of happy, healthy and normal lives, lives we should be and deserve to be living. Who wouldn’t want to watch your kids frolic in the back yard and shower loving affection towards your loved ones while drinking lemonade on the porch? True, those suffering from mental illness can’t always achieve the happiness the healthy take for granted and for those, the commercials taunt more than inspire. For these people, the commercials speak volumes even if the abstract is “ideally, this is what this medication would do for you, but you know it won’t, it will do something like this, but not enough for you to really feel healthy again”. And this is not bitterness or distrust I am emitting. Psychopharmaceuticals are helpful, at best, often can stop working or start working with no other life style changes, are burdensome in their own and take weeks, months or even years to fine tune and become fully efficacious. Those who are part of that 2.5% know this and often display distrust to new medications, waiting for their doctor to recommend them before jumping on the hopeful bandwagon.
These advertisements portray a life of happiness, of strength, of energy and of engagement with life. Though they might not provide all these aspects to all patient/consumers, these are the things often lacking in their lives. As industry perpetuates, money makes these companies global powerhouses, allowing for high production advertisements, office supplies emblazoned with their logo and gifted with generosity to prescribers, beguiling executives who convince psychiatrists of the medication’s efficacious trials and even fancy shapes and colors of pills. It is undeniable that as we progress into full and complete modernity, where we are all self-actualized and there is complete and rational transparency in the health care field, those who may have been in denial about their illness are taking on the patient/consumer role, doctors are becoming liberal about their recommendations for medications since the markets are becoming flooded with choice and as more and more is known about all mental illnesses, more targeted advertising campaigns can be launched. Though I don’t see the pharmaceutical industry being brought down any time soon, I do see a more educated patient/consumer evolving from the current state of psychopharmaceutical capitalism. This educated patient/consumer will hold power over flagrantly exaggerated advertisements’ hypocrisy and in doing so, reduce the stigma associated with all those “crazy pills” that somehow have over taken prime time in the American household.
