An article that appeared last week in HealthDay News has illuminated a somewhat controversial issue surrounding pharmaceutical companies and the marketing of “lifestyle” drugs.
These medications are not designed to be cures or treatments, but enhancements that address conditions which are quite normal, such as small eyelashes or gray hair.
The article names several popular medications:
Propecia (finasteride), which began as a stronger-dose drug to treat enlarged prostates, has been prescribed to treat men with male pattern hair loss since 1997; Botox — botulinum toxin — first used to calm spastic eye muscles, was approved to treat frown lines in 2002; and Latisse, initially used to treat glaucoma in the 1990s, became available in 2009 for cosmetic purposes after patients noticed they were also growing longer, thicker eyelashes.
Those who work in health policy are voicing concerns about whether these types of drugs are a poor use of resources or if they promote an unnecessary medicalization of normal, age-related conditions.
On an individual level, there’s little or no ethical dilemma regarding the use of medications that enhance appearance or delay the signs of aging. However, a stronger argument could be made that widespread medicalization of trivial body concerns may lead to mis-prioritization of society’s healthcare resources.
“People can do probably whatever they want, explains health policy professor Dr. Joel Lexchin, “but on a collective level, we have to think about whether producing drugs that enhance people is really the best use of our resources.”
The Food and Drug Administration treats all medications in “an identical manner,” whether they are designed for preventing heart failure or treating wrinkles. What the pharmaceutical companies end up producing depends on the market and the public’s demand for lifestyle drugs.
Read more on the HealthDay article by Maureen Salamon on Womenshealth.gov
