- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/15)
- Next Post »A La Carte (3/16)
A Cure Waiting for a Disease
- 03/15/11
- 11
There is a new documentary causing quite a lot of buzz today. It is called Orgasm, Inc. and it looks at the strange but inevitable collision of the pharmaceutical industry with women’s sexuality. Liz Canner uses this film to display the sad reality that pharmaceutical companies play a crucial role in shaping the diseases they seek to treat. To make money they need to treat diseases and they are certainly not above fabricating or exaggerating them in order to come to the rescue with some amazing new cure. Such is the case with Female Sexual Dysfunction, the particular focus of the documentary. At least that is what Liz Canner argues in Orgasm Inc. This is not a case of companies reacting to genuine problems and creating cures, but a case of companies generating diseases and then magnanimously stepping in with a cure.
A Cure that Needs a Disease
If Canner is right, it tells us two things: there are some diseases that need a cure and some cures that need a disease. When we think of the pharmaceutical industry, we like to think that they have before them a list of the diseases that afflict us and that they are responsibly seeking to generate cures for them. That’s the rose-colored glasses view. The reality is that these companies answer to the shareholder, they answer to the bottom line. And to keep that bottom line healthy they need to be proactive. And so, like any other industry, they fabricate the need as they fabricate the product. We know this happens in other areas—fashion and personal care and electronics—so why not in pharmaceuticals?
Here’s the rub: if a cure is going to sell, it needs to have insurance companies pay for it; insurance companies will only pay for it if it works against a specific medical condition. But definitions can be changed, and eventually this is what tends to happen: the drug companies work with medical experts to define the disease in such a specific way or in such a vague way that the insurance companies will need to provide the medications for it.
According to the Mayo Clinic, Female Sexual Dysfunction involves “persistent, recurrent problems with sexual response or desire.” That is rather vague, to say the least. “Persistent” and “recurrent” are both open to definition; almost any human being could claim to have persistent problems with desire in one form or another. So hand over the pills.
When it comes to sexuality it is not at all difficult to convince people that they are substandard and to reassure them of a quick fix. This was the case with Viagra and now it’s the case with the female equivalent. A review of the film by Andrew O’Hehir makes this point:
Essentially, “Orgasm Inc.” illustrates a time-honored principle of capitalism, which is that you’ll never go broke by convincing women that something is wrong with them and then selling them something to make it better. (Arguably men got the same treatment with Viagra, which clearly addresses the symptoms of erectile dysfunction, but does nothing to address underlying causes like stress, diet, weight, poor health or the aging process.)
So I suppose I offer this article with two applications.
All Sex is Dysfunctional
First, be wary of any cure. As the industry gears up to treat FSD it is going to seek to convince women that they have a problem that needs to be addressed (and one that can be best addressed by medication). They will pull out all the stops to make women feel inadequate so, in turn, they can offer fulfillment in a little pill. Most women need little encouragement to believe that they are sexually inadequate. Be wary of the messages. The truth is that all sex is dysfunctional because all sex happens in a dysfunctional world. The kind of cure these companies propose does not get to the heart of most problems (just like Viagra does not get to the heart of many of the problems that lead to erectile dysfunction). In this case it is a quick relief of symptoms, not a true cure at all.
Second, by making this issue one that can be best addressed by a pill, we allow people to be drawn away from the true source of dysfunction, whatever that may be. It is easier to take a pill than to deal with past abuse or sexual history; it is easier to take a pill than to deal with health reasons; it is easier to take a pill than to deal with what may be the spiritual heart of an issue. Like any other area in life, we always need to be wary of the quick fix, the kind of fix that comes in a bottle.
It is entirely possible, likely even, that there are some women who may benefit greatly from this kind of a cure—a cure that addresses a genuine need. But it’s more than likely—it’s doubtlessly true—that this cure will be sold to those who have no true need for it. It will be sold to those who can be convinced they have a problem or to those who can be convinced that this offers the easiest way of dealing with a problem, even if that means (or especially if that means) avoiding the heart of the issue.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (11)
Interesting. For all the good drug companies have done with research and development, they ARE profit-driven, and we need to be wise and remember that. The conditions most likely to get their attention are chronic conditions where people will take medications long-term. As a pharmacist I was exposed to a lot of their marketing/educational materials. They’re very slick.
When Prozac and the other SSRIs hit the market, it seems like the church was largely unprepared with a biblical response (at least that’s my perception from where I was at the time). Yes, there is a medical component to depression, and we need to understand that and be compassionate. But, it’s not ALWAYS a medical issue. Now it seems that we’re trying to play catch-up. We have a whole slew of people in the church who don’t even consider addressing the spiritual aspects of depression, because the drug companies have done such a thorough job with their marketing.
FSD will be even harder to address, because it’s way more sensitive and private.
Also, drug companies spend billions to lobby the government. We fought hard in our state (and beat back) the idea that all girls at age 9 should be immunized with Gardasil for HPV.
No one doubted that this was a good immunization and a useful drug, but we had to fight to kill legislation REQUIRING nine year olds to be immunized. The drug had no real time series testing, the disease is highly connected to life style choices (though not 100%), and there is only one maker of the drug, holding a patent.
This smacked of special interest manipulation by Glaxo. But we were lambasted in the newspaper as sexual tee-totalers and ignorant of modern life. Instead, I believe the newspaper editorialists and the politicians were being played by a for-profit company.
When Prozac and the other SSRIs hit the market, it seems like the church was largely unprepared with a biblical response (at least that's my perception from where I was at the time).
Yeah, I think the immediate respose was of the “NEVER EVER” variety. It’s since stabilized so Christian counselors will prescribe it if necessary, but only with great caution. Which is the way it ought to be, I think.
Great article Tim. I think this kind of stuff is rampid—endemic even—in our culture; the easy fix that comes in a pill. But I think this begs and even more daunting question; Are there tenets of capitalism that are unbiblical and even decietful that are inherent to the system? I know I run the risk of sounding unamerican (uncanadian Tim?) and comimg from the liberal end of the theological perspective (of which I am niether), but it has always erked me how blindly some conservative evangelicals follow capitalist values; even staunchly defending its principles as if Moses himself laid down the original set. Now here’s where I quote the always eloquent and quick-witted Winston Churchill:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947British politician (1874 - 1965)
I would put “capitalism” in place of “democracy” so that it would look something like this:
“Indeed, it has been said that capitalism is the worst economic system expcept all those other systems that have been tried from time to time.”
It is in this vein of thought that I put forth the question “Is capitalism biblical?” Wayne Grudem in his book “Business for the Glory of God”makes somewhat of a defense for capitalism from a biblical perspective but I think that while there are tenets of capitalism that are inherently biblical (like the right to personal property and the recognition of sinful human nature), I believe that there are aspects that are inherently unbiblical, like the need to create a market for something that may or may not have a demand because there is a demand for profits. And this does not consider things like whether or not it may be potentially harmful to humans (being that it is driven by an “invisible hand) or that it is decieving or tricking people into buying things that they may not need. We have all bought products from friends at various “parties” simply because we were either convinced that we “needed” it or perhaps as a favor to a friend. In a way, this is a sort of cheating of the market because the need did not arise naturally but through manipulation, which seems to be the way Wall Street is being run these days (just ask ol’ Bernie Madoff).
So am I sounding liberal? I hope not. These are honest questions that I have as a Christian who studies his bible and then tries to apply its principles to everything else (something Tim does quite well). So are things like the invention of FSD derived from the invisible hand of the free market or by something else (perhaps human greed)? Please weigh in. Thanks.
The alternative to free market capitalism is socialism. Where ungodly, faceless bureaucrats decide where your money goes. As long as we are free to make our own purchase choices, there is a chance for the salting influence of Christians. I’ll take the freedom to choose for myself, thank you. I don’t believe the Bible teaches we will ever live in a theocracy, indeed just the opposite as the End Times draw nearer.
Be careful not to confuse a treatment with a cure. The pharmaceutical industry predominately works in treatments. A treatment is more likely to generate repeat business. Viagra is a treatment. A cure would be dealing with the underlying issues.
Though we do occasionally need pharmaceutical products, the industry has reached a point of being predominately solutions in search of problems.
You socialist Canadian pig! You are just trying to tear down our epic capitalism! Why do you hate free markets and soldiers? Traitor! I hope They create a drug to cure your liberalism!
Two quick comments in response Tom. While I agree in general with you that capitalism is better than socialism, I think the danger we face is that even in making choices in the capitalistic society we are often subjected to quite a bit of manilpulation. The point I’m reading in Tim’s post is that, while it’s happening in a free-market where we can make our own choices, we’re being hammered into believing that choosing anything besides this drug would be the wrong thing to do (seeing as though there’s something wrong with you that this pill can fix).
The other comment is that I believe Christians have a much greater salting influence in those societies in which the majority are not innoculated against it. It’s when ungodly, faceless bureaucrats are in charge that people see their need for Christ all the more clearly. The growth of the church in China is a great example.
Another problem is the definition of “effective”. For many medications coming out these days, they are barely approved by the FDA because they are marginally better than placebo (a fake pill with inert ingredients). As soon as FDA approval is granted, the medicine is “effective”, not “10% better than nothing”. For many people with depression, exercise/placebo have been shown to be as effective as SSRIs, without the side effects. For a Christian, the kind of marketing and disease mongering that goes on in pharmaceuticals should be completely unacceptable.We truly have to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.
No question we are manipulated, Bob. That’s all many so called “solutions” have in their marketing plan. Look at the mental health industry and the doping of kids with Ritalin. I just get a little uneasy when it looks like another “bash Big Pharma” thread, when Big Pharma has saved a lot of lives. One of the root issues we need to grapple with is how people are so uninformed as to believe whatever comes down the pike. Laziness? Failing educational system? Bad family structure? Lots of options there. Blessings to you.
As a physician, I see this type of stuff all the time. For instance when SSRI makers wanted to extend their patents, they helped create something called “PMDD” premenstrual dysphoric disorder - which is just severe PMS - in the hopes that women would take the SSRI for part of the month each month. I am definitely not against SSRIs - I prescribe them frequently - but I do hate when drug companies try to create problems so that they can make more money.
But I also see the other side of it as well, that many women do experience longstanding problems with sexual dysfunction. Just like with an SSRI, a pill can be a helpful PART of a treatment plan, but it shouldn’t be the only part.