The Overpill Documentary portrayed very good points on how prescription medications can be negative and examples on how the pharmaceutical industry is pushing prescription medications to the public. The documentary was very eye opening about this epidemic, and filmed real life experiences of people and their families suffering from these medications. They interviewed people of presumed credibility that also gave reason to believe that there was false information being marketed. Although while watching the film I could agree and sympathize with these individuals, I felt that it was lacking in some areas.
There did not seem to be enough substantial evidence in the film to say all prescription medicine is bad and will cause you to become an addicted, depressed person as a result. Although it did show real people of all ages who do suffer from prescription drug dependency and what it has done to their lives, it did not bring any light on the positives of certain prescription medications. This subject in itself tends to go either far left or far right, but can it be possible to take a middle stance on this issue? This film portrays only the negatives of prescription medication.
…show more content…
The film presented Pathos as a mode of persuasion towards the audience.
They did this by capturing people in their worst conditions both physically and emotionally as a result of the side effects of prescription medications. They interviewed their families crying, and showed clips and videos of their children looking sad and depressed. All of this brought about some emotion, giving the normal viewer a sympathetic response towards these individuals and their story. The way these scenes were captured and these people were interviewed, worked as a mode of persuasion that prescription drugs have very negative impacts on people, leading to dependency, severe or fatal side effects, and will destroy families and
children. Another mode of persuasion that was used in this documentary was Ethos. They interviewed a couple of more credible people such as an attorney and a doctor. The attorney was Mr. Baum who served as an advocate to people as a means of gaining access to the big pharmaceutical classified documents. He gave statements about how the companies will manipulate the results of prescription drugs to show little to no evidence of suicide as a side effect. Mr. Baum also talks about how he was able to gain access to a classified document from one of the internal scientists that states, “It's not so much that they are committing suicide, their death is a welcome alternative to how uncomfortable it is to go through akathisia.” Akathisia is an adverse side effect to certain prescription drugs causing an inner restlessness and inability to stay still. The doctor they interviewed was Dr. Peter Breggin, MD, who made the statement “There are no lifetime studies...the drugs only work for a few weeks...this is such a fraud.” He is referring to prescription drugs and the pharmaceutical industry being a fraud, because they are not able to do any long term studies on these drugs, yet are prescribing them for long periods of time. By using doctors and attorneys that people look up to for their opinions or advice on this matter makes the information look credible, and persuades the viewer that prescription drugs are a fraud. I tend to be in the middle of the issue regarding prescription medications in this film. I don’t stand too far left or right, instead I can see both sides of the story. I personally know a few family members that have suffered from severe mental illness their whole adult lives, and by not taking any medications or getting help for it has caused them to become hospitalized and go into psychosis. They were personally against being dependent on medications and did not want to be labeled because of a medication they took. Now they know that they have to be on medications to help their mental illness, because that is the only way they are able to function in society and not hurt themselves or their families. Now to touch base on the other side, I can also understand that there are individuals out there who have addictive personalities regarding medications, or perhaps a certain medication caused them severe side effects, etc. I can sympathize with this person and agree that this may not be the right choice for them. I do not agree with this film in regards to how they make all scenarios, and all prescription medications bad, end of story. The issue of prescription medications needs to be judged on a case to case basis, because human beings will always abuse things as long as we live, not just prescription drugs, and there will always be adverse side effects to certain individuals, yet that does not make it the case for everyone. I think it is great that these medications and resources are out there for people who truly need them.
The film consists of an argument intermixed with various examples of how the drugs are distributed. The argument starts with the fact that children are being overdiagnosed and put on too much medication, then, the experts analyze the different school shootings and how all the school shooters were on medication, and lastly, the film shows how the pharmaceutical companies control the government and the FDA, so there is no way for the government to negotiate with those companies. Throughout the documentary, there is a secondary narrative of a man who is trying to get away from his addiction. Mike details how he became an addict, and his doctor explains how they treat patients like Mike to help them get past their physical dependence on the drugs. Knezev creates a strong argument against the pharmaceutical companies and the drugs they produce. He is a social activist who has written many books combatting social issues as well as creating other films such as American Addict and Fragments of Daniela. His inspiration for creating American Addict and American Addict 2 is the fact that America is “5% of the world population and is ingesting 80% of the world’s pharmaceutical narcotics” (vimeo.com). First, he uncovered the tiered pharmaceutical system; then, he created an argument against the corrupt system he found by interviewing many politicians and investigators who have
The use of definition when it comes to dopamine, for example, is an excellent rhetorical strategy for those unfamiliar with the chemical and its effects on happiness. This comes to light when the film describes dopamine as “a chemical in the brain called a neurotransmitter that’s necessary for feelings of pleasure and happiness” , and then explains the intricate details of its process in the brain (Belic). Considering how dopamine is the fundamental chemical for happiness, it is essential that this documentary set in modern times touch upon it. When it comes to rhetorical strategies, the documentary does hold an advantage over written pieces in terms of imagery. Obviously, to use one image or vivid description would be a discredit to the others it presents, but where its imagery holds the most power is when the film demonstrates people “doing what they love” while talking about it, such as the surfer who describes his passion as the camera shows him curving over a wave (Belic). This particular usage of imagery allows the audience to visualize and connect with what the surfer is describing, and almost allowing them to experience it in the same fashion. This works particularly well in combination with the sound effects of the waves and wind combined and the soothing soundtrack to provide an element of
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
Some people do not understand the effects of anxiety and cannot recognize the harmful effects of the disorder. Most likely, people who feel this way believe those who suffer from anxiety create their situations within their head. In other words, individuals who are not empathetic may consider people with anxiety crazy. With that in mind, these individuals do not see anxiety suffers as normal and will also dislike the documentary for the attempt to be persuaded oppositely. Overall, someone who is empathetic and understand would pity the persons featured within the
The war on drugs in our culture is a continuous action that is swiftly lessening our society. This has been going on for roughly 10-15 years and has yet to slow down in any way. Drugs continue to be a problem for the obvious reason that certain people abuse them in a way that can lead to ultimate harm on such a person. These drugs do not just consist of street drugs (marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy), but prescription medications as well. Although there are some instances where drugs are being used by subjects excessively, there has been medical research to prove that some of these drugs have made a successful impact on certain disorders and diseases.
In the business of drug production over the years, there have been astronomical gains in the technology of pharmaceutical drugs. More and more drugs are being made for diseases and viruses each day, and there are many more drugs still undergoing research and testing. These "miracle" drugs are expensive, however, and many Americans cannot afford these prices.
An Analysis of GlaxoSmithKline The business that I have done research into is GlaxoSmithKline. This company is a globalised research-based pharmaceutical public limited company. Its ownership structure has changed a great deal since the original company was first established in 1715. Originally a pharmacy, the company has expanded, merged with and taken over other companies over the decades.
Threat of new entrants is relatively high. Companies forming alliances are potential rivals. Even if earlier such company was not considered to be a threat, after merging with some research and development company or forming alliance with another pharmaceutical company it would become a rival to Eli Lilly. The threat is however weakened by significant research and development costs necessary to successfully enter the business. Eli Lilly’s focus on a relatively narrow market of sedatives and antidepressants weakens the threat of new entrants, but other products that form lesser part of company’s sales such as insulin and others are exposed to high threat of new entrants. The need of obtaining certificates and licenses also weakens the threat of new entrants. Discussed above leads to the conclusion that threat of new entrants is medium.
On the other hand, marijuana and LSD are not the only drugs that are used in films to help enhance the way the film is perceived. Requiem for a Dream revolves it’s entire plot around the ups and downs of being a heroin addict, and leaves little room for pleasant scenes. This film is a classic drug movie that swings from ups to downs in the matter of minutes. Whether it be the simple high, or the ending desperate withdrawal addiction, this film plays with our sensitive sides of the ideas of hard drug use. (Morris, 2000) Drugs such as heroin tend to reach a level that is not normally suitable for watching movies. It is not that the audience is incapable of watching the film, but their conscious state is not suited for film watching. (Mathijs and Sexton, 169) Many would agree that this film is hard to watch due to its extreme graphics of heroi...
PROBLEM STATEMENT Teva Pharmaceuticals, the first multinational pharmaceutical company in Israel, has become a successful global giant in the industry of generic drugs. After experiencing a long period of success and growth in the generic drug industry against some big western pharmaceuticals, the company had acquired many well known pharmaceutical companies and had achieved its goal of $1 billion. theory seemed to be in trouble in building a new strategy and vision to compete with the rapidly growing generic industry. They confronted two big issues as key hurdles in their way.
The emotional feel or atmosphere created by the documentary was just trying to help. You could tell that they want to help people and make sure they are all healthy and can live the right lifestyle. While watching this film I encountered many things I found questionable. I found three claims to be bias/ controversial in this documentary: it uses correlation as causation, they claim someone having health issues can be solved by cutting meat out of their diet, and lastly they only use one study to prove their method, and it is the one that one of the main people in the movie made.
The Medicated Child exposed the problem of medicating American children for mental illnesses. Diagnosing mental illness has always been difficult and that problem is only exacerbated in children. Common and controversial diagnosis for children that are talked about in this documentary are ADHA and bipolar. Often children will be misdiagnosed which can be a real problem when medication is being prescribed. Before the 90’s children where being prescribed medicine’s that were completely untested in their age group. This was just one of the many problems that the health community, family’s, and the children with these illnesses faced. This was thankfully changed due to government intervention and there is now some knowledge on how these drugs affect
For example in the middle of the film Eddie 's girlfriend Lindy is being chased by another user of NZT-48 who is trying to acquire the stash of pills she had on her. She called Eddie wanting to know what to do and he advises her to take one of the pills implying that it will be clear once she is on the drug (Limitless). This shows that in the movie that taking that little clear pill instantly fixes a situation. This is a view that is shared in the American society today. If you 're looking for proof, just think about how when a child is diagnosed with a hyperactivity disorder (ADD, ADHD) the doctor often immediately prescribes adderall. It is also easy to see the American people 's infatuation with drugs by simply looking at our current number of prescriptions filled at pharmacies annually. An active data table hosted by The Henry J. Kaiser Family foundation states that about four billion prescriptions are filled annually (Kaiser) .This is enough prescriptions for every person in the country, children and adults, to have twelve each. Once a person is on a drug it is often hailed as an immediate fix to the problem, but many don’t think or just don’t care about the long-term side effects it could
Three men were asked to race in a competition across a desert for a grand prize. Of the three men, the two strongest and fastest start running franticly into the desert in hopes to beat the other. The third man stood calmly and watched the race for a moment and then began to walk in the other direction with a smile on his face. A judge of the race stopped the man walking in the other direction and asked him, “Where are you going? The race is that way, to the east.” The man turned and pointed at the two other men racing as they disappeared over the horizon, and then replied to the judge, “I’m running my race towards the west and by looks things I’m already winning.” Companies don’t have to be the biggest, strongest or wealthiest to compete in an economy, sometimes they just simply have to recreate the competition.
The case under analysis, Eli Lilly & Company, will be covering the positives and negatives with regards to the business situation and strategy of Eli Lilly. One of the major pharmaceutical and health care companies in its industry, Lilly focused its efforts on the areas of "drug research, development, and marketed to the following areas: neuroscience, endocrinology, oncology, cardiovascular disease, and women's health." Having made a strong comeback in the 1990's due to its remarkably successful antidepressant Prozac, was now facing a potential loss in profits with its patent soon to expire. The problem was not only the soon to expire patent on Prozac, but the fact that Prozac accounted for as much as 30% of total revenue was the reality Eli Lilly now faced. (Pearce & Robinson, 34-1)