Drug companies are used to telling consumers about side effects—the headache, nausea, and mild genital swelling that can ensue from that ubiquitous antacid. We all know that traditional advertising media (TV, radio, newspapers), as well as non-traditional advertising media (blogs, coffee sleeves, and tattoos), present startling disclosures about pharmaceutical side effect risks. Americans are barraged with these admonitions, and a sizable portion of the drug industry’s $3 billion advertising budget is devoted to telling consumers about what can go wrong.
But what about the things that can go less right? It’s of course important to know about pathological side effects, but I’d also like to know how a drug can affect my functioning “north of neutral.” Does the drug impede my typical feelings of vitality? Will I experience less positive affect than usual? Will I run as far and as fast? In short, will the drug prevent me from feeling my best?
Following the prevailing wisdom of the medical model, pharmaceutical trials have historically been designed to focus on pathological side effects. Fortunately, leaders like Maslow, Jahoda, Seligman, and others have provided more inclusive models that go beyond pathology. Positive psychology and other movements have prompted many people in caring professions to help others get more of what they want in addition to mitigating what they don’t want. Drug companies would serve their customers well (and may even gain a competitive advantage if the idea is pitched well) if they begin to utilize burgeoning wellness-focused models, and regularly investigate “north of neutral” side effects in pharmaceutical trials.
When I become a physician, I’ll strive to provide patients with the information necessary to help them weigh the risks and benefits of their treatment options. Understanding only how a drug may induce pathology, and having no idea how a drug affects aspects of biopsychosocial well-being, strikes me as a glaring gap in the information I can provide. Most people are concerned with more than just vomiting and diarrhea. People also want to know if a drug will prevent them from living life to the fullest.
___
A very funny commentary on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYodDH4qZQo
(Editor’s Note: Worth watching!)
___
| Jordan Silberman, MAPP ‘06, does pediatric palliative care research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Jordan’s bio.
Jordan writes on the 27th of each month, and his past articles are here. |
- An Interview with Toyota University’s Mike Morrison by Margaret Greenberg (11-14-07)
- Sleepless in Seattle? Then count your blessings… by Bridget Grenville-Cleave (1-25-08)
- Do Consumers Really Have Free Choice? Fast Food and the Physiology of Self-Regulation by Jordan Silberman (11-28-07)
- What’s Your North Pole Goal? by Margaret Greenberg (4-14-08)
- Money Will Never Make You Happy by Anthony DeLuca (3-23-07)
Ok! Jordan, this video is hilarious!
Jordan: I want you to be my doctor! Are going into geriatrics? Loved the video - especially the “disclaimer” at the end. All the best, Doug
Jordan,
Great article and video, thanks! I’m happy that you are joining the medical profession. I hope you’ll also (if you haven’t already) take a good look at homeopathic remedies as alternatives to drugs. In some cases, they are a superb alternative to drugs — and they work by prompting your own system to bring your physical, emotional and spiritual sides back into the right balance for you. Nice fit with positive psychology’s approaches.
Christine
Well, color me confused. I’ve taken drugs whose inserts talk about psychological side effects, for sure. What am I missing?
Also, how would you measure a drug’s impact on “feeling your best”? It seems to me that even in the largest clinical trial, you’re unlikely to get statistically significant data on that… that is, unless you have a drug that is truly an upper or a downer, in which case it’ll come out in the trial (and therefore in the drug insert — or the lack of approval by the FDA) anyway.