I thought this 1970 Valium ad was particularly interesting because it is included in the 'women's issues' section of the website, although it is encouraging the dispensing of Valium to men. A quick look at the advertisement, however, highlights clearly why this ad is listed under the 'women's issues' section of the website--and it is because the women in this advertisement are literally causing the man's psychoneurotic symptoms. Like many of the advertisements on the website, this one appears to be directed at doctors and features a 'sociometrically dispersed' depiction of his relationships and illustrates that he is being dominated by women. The women in the ad certainly visually dominate the man -- they are much larger than he is and they form a circle around him that prevents him from socializing with other men. The ad states, "In this individual, domination by women has led to psychic tension."
I think this an interesting example of the kind of relationship Tone mentions between drug companies and therapists. Valium is seen as a potential "partner" to the "psychotherapeutic skills" of the doctor. This advertisement builds on the relationship established between medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies and is interesting because it is targeting a disorder that has already been sold--and trying to sell it in a new way.
Gender ideology has always been an important part of treating diseases of the mind (and the body) -- from dude ranches, to the rest cure, to "mother's little helper," medicine as a discipline has frequently reified existing gender norms. In this example, the overbearing mother is a cause of malaise--a common theme in mid-20th century medicine. Overbearing mothers have been blamed for homosexuality in the past (which I would argue is echoed int his advertisement because the man's wife looks like a drag queen) and for emotional crazymaking. In any event, relationships between men and their mothers run an acute risk of being unhealthy within this discourse. This is visually represented by the fact that the man's mother hovers over all the over figures in the "sociometric" depiction of his social life.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Mornidine
I was initially hesitant to blog about this advertisement for Mornidine because to be honest I thought it was too easy! It shows the illustration of a smiling woman in a long, baggy white blouse. She is standing in front of a stove and frying eggs and bacon on a skillet. On the other side of the stove sits a kettle. Above her the advertisement reads, "Now She Can Cook Breakfast Again," and below her, "…When You Prescribe New Mornidine." I ultimately decided that this add needs to be addressed. The main problem with the advertisement is who the drug is targeting as its potential costumers. It is not aimed at women, the people who would actually be taking the drug in question. Now, assuming that does not have any negative effects on the child, which I doubt but am willing to put aside for the sake of argument, I don't have any problem with the drug itself. Morning sickness can make one feel quite miserable and a drug that is capable of relieving such a state would be welcomed by many pregnant women. But this add isn't for them. It's for men. The illustration suggests that the problem with morning sickness isn't the morning sickness, it's the the fact that you as a white, middle-class, working male are no longer awaken by the heavenly fumes of bacon on the frying pan. But instead, imagine, you are now ripped from your dreams of golfing with the president and now have to deal with your wife puking her guts out all over the bathroom. How unattractive. THE BREAKFAST ISN'T THE PROBLEM HERE. The problem is supposed to be the medical issue that this medication is supposed to cure, isn't that right?
Another issue is the whole "when you prescribe her.." part. The "you" in question, the husband, can't prescribe anything unless you also happen to be her physician. The add assumes that the husband has the right to chose what is best for his wife, and that what kinds of medication she uses is up to him. It isn't. It is between the doctor and patient (now I fear that I'm beating a dead horse here, but just to be clear, the patient is the pregnant woman, not the hungry husband).
As strange as it sounds, this add is a good sign of where we are today. I thought this add was "too easy," because the problems with it seem so apparent to today's consumers (at least I hope that they do). Women are no longer breakfast machines, we're slowly making our way to being full-fledged, badge carrying human beings. That gives me comfort at least.
Another issue is the whole "when you prescribe her.." part. The "you" in question, the husband, can't prescribe anything unless you also happen to be her physician. The add assumes that the husband has the right to chose what is best for his wife, and that what kinds of medication she uses is up to him. It isn't. It is between the doctor and patient (now I fear that I'm beating a dead horse here, but just to be clear, the patient is the pregnant woman, not the hungry husband).
As strange as it sounds, this add is a good sign of where we are today. I thought this add was "too easy," because the problems with it seem so apparent to today's consumers (at least I hope that they do). Women are no longer breakfast machines, we're slowly making our way to being full-fledged, badge carrying human beings. That gives me comfort at least.
Cylert
The Cylert advertisement is a testament to this fact. If your child is not performing ideally in school or seems to be "hyperkinetic" then you can send him to the doctor, subject him to some tests that determines if he has some disorder called minimal brain dysfunction (MBD). Now if your child does indeed have this disorder, you can pop a pill of Cylert in your kids mouth before he runs off to school to control his impulsive behavior. Clinical studies show that children taking Cylert have improved scores on IQ scores, arithmetic, reading and other important tests that determine how close to perfection your child is. Your child may not sleep for three days and lose his appetite, but hey its worth it!
It should be noted that this advertisement did say that this medication is not for children who are just simply overactive, and has other underlying secondary environmental factors influencing his behavior.
The issue I take on this advertisement is my more than obvious stance on medicating children. There is a very fine line between hyperactive and and hyperkinetic child, if there even is one, and the inclusion of intelligence in the ad suggests that they inherently go hand in hand. To me this line of thought seems to be a bit fuzzy to me especially when we are dealing with a disorder with an etiology that is still being studied today. Our seeing devices are based on solely on how we think a hyperkinetic/hyperactive child appears to us. It is at times a socially construct disorder that is still present today with the epidemic of ADHD.
Although this article is dated this drug was still on the market until 2003 when it was withdrawn because of the "increased the risk of liver failure in children by almost 45 times," as reported by the FDA. As pointed out by the bonkers institute website, this medication was on the market for 30 years before being recalled. This just proves how imperfect we really are- I think the sooner people realize this fact the better.
“We don’t ‘Just say no’, we’re too busy sayin’ ‘Yeah!’”
Here is an ad for Metadate CD. From what I gather, it’s the same active chemical (methylphenidate) as Ritalin and has similar effects to those of Adderall (dextroamphetamine and amphetamine) and “street-grade” speed (methamphetamine). Aside from the substance the ad is pushing, the ad isn’t overtly offensive. As far as ads go, it seems pretty tame, even. What caught my eye was the part about this ad violating international law.
Here’s a copy of the cease-and-desist letter sent by the DEA to the manufacturer of Metadate. It's not particularly threatening, despite the fact that the manufacturer is in clear violation of international law. As indicated on the Bonkers Institute website, the Bush II administration didn’t seek prosecution.
Here’s a PSA by Partnership for a Drug-Free America, from the Bonkers Institute site. Some of you may be too young to remember, but Partnership for a Drug-Free America are the same folks who brought you gems such as this and this.
I realize that anti-drug PSAs don’t necessarily come directly from the federal government, but the hypocrisy here is readily apparent. The inaction by the Bush II administration seems to say that there are good drug dealers and there are bad drug dealers, and the government gets to decide who’s who. The good ones have way more money and interest and lawyers on retainer than the bad ones, even though the products both of them are selling are remarkably similar. In other words, big pharmaceutical companies have permission to advertise and sell almost exactly the same thing that a Mexican drug cartel or a Nazi biker gang might be pushing. Not only that, but the product the big companies are producing is widely prescribed to school-age children.
It also appears that we have yet another item with which to indict G.W. Bush and/or his cronies.
Here’s a copy of the cease-and-desist letter sent by the DEA to the manufacturer of Metadate. It's not particularly threatening, despite the fact that the manufacturer is in clear violation of international law. As indicated on the Bonkers Institute website, the Bush II administration didn’t seek prosecution.
Here’s a PSA by Partnership for a Drug-Free America, from the Bonkers Institute site. Some of you may be too young to remember, but Partnership for a Drug-Free America are the same folks who brought you gems such as this and this.
I realize that anti-drug PSAs don’t necessarily come directly from the federal government, but the hypocrisy here is readily apparent. The inaction by the Bush II administration seems to say that there are good drug dealers and there are bad drug dealers, and the government gets to decide who’s who. The good ones have way more money and interest and lawyers on retainer than the bad ones, even though the products both of them are selling are remarkably similar. In other words, big pharmaceutical companies have permission to advertise and sell almost exactly the same thing that a Mexican drug cartel or a Nazi biker gang might be pushing. Not only that, but the product the big companies are producing is widely prescribed to school-age children.
It also appears that we have yet another item with which to indict G.W. Bush and/or his cronies.
Thorazine: Because Time Is Money.
http://bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/thoraztime.html
The link above is an ad that was run by Thorazine (a brand of the anti-psychotic drug chlorpromazine) in 1957. The drug is used primarily to treat patients who have schizophrenia. However, if you look through the Thorazine section on Bonkers Institute you’ll see it was marketed as the solution to dozens of other conditions. These included alcoholism, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, aggression, agitated depression...and that’s just the A’s. It is almost as if the marketing team reviewed all of these ailments and found a way to link them to something that the drug could “fix”. For example, women in menopause are worried about aging, worry causes stress, stress causes anxiety…tranquilizers ease anxiety and therefore “cure” women in menopause (http://bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/thorazmenop.html).
When I saw this particular ad I had to re-read it a second time because I didn’t think it could possibly be real, but it most certainly is. It is a drug advertisement that poses as an official unbiased article. With "EXTRA" written in large bold letters across the top and a marketing claim that looks like a headline, it could easily be mistaken for an unpaid section of the publication it was run in. It is important to note that the ad was printed in Volume 8 of a medical journal called Mental Hospitals.
The "article" is about a new slow release capsule called Spansule ™ that will allow for fewer daily doses of Thorazine. The caption of the photo reads “Only one or two doses daily save time in busy hospital wards where three or four ‘dosage rounds’ were required’”. Thorazine was targeting medical professionals suggesting they use their drug, not because it was the best choice for the patients, but because it would be convenient and economical for the staff and institution. The fact that the drug had also been marketing itself for every condition under the sun helps cements the motivations of the drug company as purely for profit. It subtracts any concern for the patient or commitment to the safe and effective use of the drug from the equation.
The link above is an ad that was run by Thorazine (a brand of the anti-psychotic drug chlorpromazine) in 1957. The drug is used primarily to treat patients who have schizophrenia. However, if you look through the Thorazine section on Bonkers Institute you’ll see it was marketed as the solution to dozens of other conditions. These included alcoholism, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, aggression, agitated depression...and that’s just the A’s. It is almost as if the marketing team reviewed all of these ailments and found a way to link them to something that the drug could “fix”. For example, women in menopause are worried about aging, worry causes stress, stress causes anxiety…tranquilizers ease anxiety and therefore “cure” women in menopause (http://bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/thorazmenop.html).
When I saw this particular ad I had to re-read it a second time because I didn’t think it could possibly be real, but it most certainly is. It is a drug advertisement that poses as an official unbiased article. With "EXTRA" written in large bold letters across the top and a marketing claim that looks like a headline, it could easily be mistaken for an unpaid section of the publication it was run in. It is important to note that the ad was printed in Volume 8 of a medical journal called Mental Hospitals.
The "article" is about a new slow release capsule called Spansule ™ that will allow for fewer daily doses of Thorazine. The caption of the photo reads “Only one or two doses daily save time in busy hospital wards where three or four ‘dosage rounds’ were required’”. Thorazine was targeting medical professionals suggesting they use their drug, not because it was the best choice for the patients, but because it would be convenient and economical for the staff and institution. The fact that the drug had also been marketing itself for every condition under the sun helps cements the motivations of the drug company as purely for profit. It subtracts any concern for the patient or commitment to the safe and effective use of the drug from the equation.
Anti-Ritalin Clothing Line?
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/ymca.html
I will probably be one of the only bloggers this week arguing on the side of medication, but this advertisement truly affected me. I have pasted the url above, but to describe it quickly, it’s a black and white picture of a youth basketball team with text above that reads, “Before video games, before Facebook, before Ritalin, there was basketball.” While I understand the intentions of this advertisement was not to be insulting, but rather to encourage healthy physical activity in a generation plagued with childhood obesity, I still could not help but be a little offended, and I was not the only one who felt this way. A message from the YMCA sates that within only one day of running the ad they received letters from hurt families dealing with attention disorder problems. These families viewed the ad as a rebuke of their struggles. Immediately the advertisement was discontinued.
The problem I see is that there is a stigma in existence today that anyone using medication to manage ADD or ADHD problems is in reality weak and if they would only channel their hyperactivity or attention deficit issues into something productive they wouldn’t need drugs. We can see this stigmatism in countless places. After just a couple minutes of googling I found anti Ritalin campaigns, anti Ritalin pamphlets, anti Ritalin facebook groups, and even a line of gifts and clothing that display some not so PC anti Ritalin sentiments like, “have you kissed your snot nosed Ritalin Junkie today” and “Imagination should never be medicated.” I’ll include the link to this so you can see for yourself: http://shop.cafepress.com/anti-ritalin
I realize that the number of prescriptions for attention disorders has dramatically risen recently, and much of America is genuinely overmedicated. Because of this I can understand where this stigma that “no one really needs Ritalin” comes from, but I can tell you from personal experience it simply is not true. While I myself may not have a prescription for any of these attention disorder drugs, for a year I lived very closely to someone who did. Her name was Hannah, and this adorable nine year old girl was developmentally delayed and took Ritalin daily. I very clearly remember the days when her overwhelmed mother forgot or was late medicating her. The difference between medicated Hannah and natural Hannah was like night and day. Within an hour she would go from pleasant, agreeable, and happy, to kicking, screaming, and miserable. Hannah needed these drugs. Without them she simply was not happy or well functioning.
What I’m ultimately trying to communicate is that for many, attention disorders are a true struggle and it very necessary to manage them with medication. Therefore advertisements, like the YMCA’s, can be offensive when they send messages that delegitimize these disorders.
There is always something wrong with your child.
In quite a few of the Ads on the website (bonkersinstutute.org), the promise of “curing” an over-active, misbehaving child is the focus. The Ads colorful descriptions of “problem” behavior in elementary school children would lead the reader to believe that there exists a pill that will transform their unruly offspring into, for all intents and purposes, a miniature adult. And as grotesque as the idea is that advertisers and drug manufacturers would suggest drugging children in order to make them behave, the reality of the situation is much worse: the convincing of adults that there is something seriously and medically amiss with their child, and therefore the behavior perfectly normal for a child is something deviant and abnormal and warrants medication and therapy.
The article titled “He Can’t Help It, He Has MBD,” (http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/kidhelp.html) paints an image of a disease so discreet, so well hidden, that it takes a professional to even notice its existence. The description of the dysfunction is so ambiguous and obscure it is a wonder the drug companies were even able to convince anybody of its existence. For example, in the paragraph of the advertisement describing this potential problem, the article says that although this problem, Minimal Brain Dysfunction or MBD, is the most common problem seen in children, “its existence is often unrecognized and its prevalence is almost always underestimated.” It sure seems as though this is something that, while most likely actually existing, is being blown way out of proportion in order to scare parents into medicating their children, or at least leading to false diagnosis.
The article goes on to continue to refute the idea that this problem does not exist, claiming “Because the child may function quite normally on a one-to-one basis . . . clinical impressions from a single office visit may be misleading.” The mere fact that the majority of this article is spent trying to remind the reader over and over that this is a REAL disease and your child most likely has should cause you to raise your eyebrows. The drug, as it says, doesn’t show any effects on about one third of the children who take it. Perhaps this is simply the number of children who don’t truly have anything wrong with them.
Children are over-active, hyper, easily distracted, and incredibly emotional. It is true that some children act out in these ways much more than others, but this does not inherently mean that there is something mentally wrong with them that needs to be fixed with some sort of drug. The headline explaining the article even says, “See the creation of a discrete disease entity before your very eyes! Before they could sell the drug, they had to sell the idea of the disease itself” which more or less sets the tone for the ridiculous medical explanation of this disease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)