So every time we talk about prescription drugs, we get people complaining about advertising. And the drug they complain about most is Vioxx. Sigh. They say that in most cases aspirin would do just as well, that it's an unnecessary expense, that the commercials send patients scurrying to their doctors to demand drugs they shouldn't have.
For the past year, my mother's had pain in her arm and hand that has gotten worse over time. Aspirin helps, but not enough. She can't open cans or bottles if the lid is tight, and she's had to give up needlepoint. Yesterday, she finally went to a doctor to find out if it really was arthritis, or something else.
He prescribed (I know you saw this coming): Vioxx.
She didn't ask for it; my mother has never seen a Vioxx commercial, as she doesn't watch much television. Moreover, she's not the kind of person who walks in to her doctor's office with helpful suggestions for the guy who spent 10 years studying medicine and another 20 practicing it. So clearly, some doctors do use the stuff, despite the insistence of my interlocutors that it's just more expensive aspirin, good for nothing except pumping up pharmaceutical firms' bottom lines.
I just spoke to her. "The pain is gone", she said, with wonder. "I can't believe it -- I just took the first pill last night. It's gone. Until this morning, I didn't even remember what it felt like not to have pain in that arm. I can't tell you what it's like not to wake up in the night . . . to sleep all night and wake up without that pain." When we finished speaking, she was off to see if she could open a bottle of Pellegrino, a task that has been beyond her for the last year.
It's a pity she didn't see those useless Vioxx commercials six months ago.
Posted by Jane Galt at October 29, 2002 9:34 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links