I chose to analyze this artifact, a Serax advertisement in a 1967 publication of the Journal of the American Medical Association, for the reason that it uses a variety of persuasive tactics to convince doctors that Serax is the right antidepressant treatment for a woman burdened by the endless responsibilities of housework and raising a young family.
While analyzing this artifact I found that Wyeth Laboratories, the producer of the drug Serax, used strategies such as guilt to make the doctors feel responsible for helping the woman in the photo in the advertisement. The ad tells doctors they cannot 'free' the woman from her responsibilities, but they can help make her feel a little less 'anxious.' I found this to be interesting because that type of image makes doctors think of a woman they know who may be suffering or feeling buried under an insurmountable load of housework; maybe a wife or mother in the past.
The analysis matters because it informs people they must be aware of advertisements such as these which guilt an audience into believing the drug is the right one for them or those they may know. In this case, Wyeth Laboratories attempts to guilt doctors into prescribing this drug to women with depression-like symptoms. This call to action for doctors makes it their responsibility, even if they do not think it is right to prescribe Serax to every woman who is feeling anxiety as a result of too much housework. The implication is that all people who view mainstream media on a regular basis must be a rhetorician of sorts, and pay attention to advertisements like these and realize they are not always right. Often times their only interest is to sell a product.
Some questions this ad led me to pose are:
1. How can we better ourselves or others as rhetoricians? Does everyone need to take a class in rhetoric of medicine to be informed?
2. Is it ethical for drug companies like Wyeth Laboratories to guilt doctors into taking its preferred action (prescribing the drug)? Is guilt the only way for drug companies to get their point across?
3. What can we do every day to make sure we are informed about the underlying meanings of drug ads like these?
ReplyDeleteOne does not absolutely need to take a course on rhetoric to be informed. However, I feel as thought it’s partially the duty of those that are informed to spread the word about how health ads like this one are persuading us. Something that we can do every day to make sure we are informed is to simply take the time to think about the true agenda and message that the commercials and advertisements we see are trying to get across. Simply not believing everything we see in an advertisement can make us better. Taking the time to research medication and drugs that are advertised for ourselves can also make sure that we are appropriately and well informed.
I don’t think that it is ethical for drug companies to “guilt” doctors into using their medicine. They should make that decision based on the effects of the medicine and how well it works. Also, patients are different so for them to claim that this medicine works for every woman is a little ridiculous. It takes away from the personal aspect of the doctor patient interaction and allows doctors to look at their patient (in this case all women) as a machine that can be fixed with this one medicine. Also, it is sort of a “quick fix” that could be dangerous or essentially not helpful in the long run.
I also did this artifact and couldn't agree more about Wyeth Laboratories using guilt against doctors to prescribe their medication. Another thing to look at is how Wyeth had to create a consumer for the medication on top of guilting the physicians into prescribing Serax. By pathologizing women into being medically abnormal, Serax can portray women as "weak" and needing aid.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not feel that guilt is the only means for drug companies to get their point across. However, logos, ethos, and pathos have all shown to be some of the most rhetorically effective means at persuading, which is the primary goal of the advertisement. I feel that their use of pathos was definitely a strong decision but, there is hardly any logic or credibility appeal. I feel that in order to really make a point, Serax would have to use all three to develop a stronger platform for their medication.
I can understand how a person could view this artifact as containing guilt, however I believe there is another/ different ideology playing here. From my personal view, I would not call it guilt that is the major power at play. I believe it is more on the line of paternalism. Since it was predominantely male doctor's during the time period that this advertisement was produced, I believe that their paternalistic instincts of protection and feeling the need to help this women is a key factor in the selling of Serax. I also believe paternalism to be the ideology at play because the feelings of guilt are usually associated with an individual's emotions who is causing the problem, thus feeling bad, and wanting to fix the issue.
ReplyDelete