Chris Green wrote: "The side-effect notices in pharmaceutical ads are mandated by law, and are typically quite perfunctory (tiny print, or very rapidly spoken, no indication of frequency). In fact, pharmaceutical ads are about seem to me to be as bad as any other in terms of breaking implicature maxims."
I'm not saying that pharmaceutical ads are a public service and I did mention that the statements were mandatory. However, I have noticed that they really seem to have embraced the warnings in recent years which makes me wonder if they haven't found an upside to them (like increased perceived trustworthiness). These days, it seems that the small print seems to take a majority of the ad and they usually narrate them and not very fast. There is even one ad where the "small print" is the focus of the ad. There is animation throughout the ad that upon closer examination, is the written version of the small print the narrator is reading.The lack of indication of frequency of these adverse events seems to work against the ad in the sense that when you bring up death, not mentioning frequency probably makes it seem more likely than if the probability was specified. I usually think, after hearing one of these ads, "is there really any amount of pain that would be worth the chance of those side effects?" Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
