[berbec]

I never understood the change in US law allowing direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medication. Doctors are told not to write scripts to family, friends and themselves, so how the hell can I make an informed decision about my cancer treatment using a 30 second infomercial?

[stevenwoo]

Doesn't this boil down to Citizens United - if corporations are allowed to use money as they see fit because money is roughly equivalent to free speech then all three branches of government are responding to the entities with the most of it - in this case big pharma.

[berbec]

I am not making any reference to Citizens United. This started in the US in 1981 and there was FDA guidance issued in '85. "The FDA said in 1985 that drug makers could air ads, but they also had to follow rigid rules for disclosing side effects and other information." [1]

1: https://www.statnews.com/2015/12/11/untold-story-tvs-first-p...

[barry-cotter]

It boils down to the First Amendment, the government cannot censor speech. In US law groups have the same free speech rights as individuals. Michael Moore doesn’t lose his free speech rights when he makes a propaganda movie with a film studio, and Citizens United didn’t lose their free speech rights when they made their propaganda movie either.

[danaris]

Citizens United wasn't the decision equating money with speech. I don't know offhand which that was, but it was much earlier.

IIRC, Citizens United was the decision that allowed much more and much more opaque spending on political campaigns by corporations and wealthy individuals—it allowed the creation of SuperPACs, for instance.