I think that companies that advertise motorized scooters for Medicare recipients are intrusive and detrimental to the doctor/patient relationship. All marketing at its most basic level is about creating a need and then filling it. These companies try to create a need which doesn't necessarily already exist.
Now I understand that in America a company has the right to advertise its product in an attempt to create consumer demand. The situation is different however when the product being promoted requires the authorization of a third party, a physician.
This is similar to the direct consumer ads from pharmaceutical companies. They fall into two broad categories. The first is aimed at making the consumer aware of disease and that treatment exist while the second is aimed at getting the patient to pester his doctor for a specific brand of medicine.
When these ads educate the public about treatments that are available for embarrassing or seldom discussed health problems like overactive bladder, peripheral arterial disease, or restless leg syndrome, the chance for dialog is created. The patient might not have been aware of treatments available for certain conditions and has an opportunity brought up symptoms that a busy physician might not have the time to inquire about without prompting.
What I don't care for are the pharmaceutical ads that merely promote products for well recognized conditions like allergies and erectile dysfunction in an attempt to have a patient badger their doctor into prescribing a particular brand for a condition in which multiple medication options are available. The scooter ads fall into this category as everyone that's been to any grocery store or Wal-Mart knows that these devices exist.
The scooters are promised to be available at no out-of-pocket expense to patients, suggesting that only a cold-hearted physician would deny this marvelous device to his kind, frail patients. This creates ill will should the physician not acquiesce to the demands of the patient and the scooter company.
The companies hawking these devices are preying on patients' sense of entitlement. After all, the viewer who has Medicare has paid into the system his whole life. He deserves whatever products are available at no charge to Medicare patients whether or not it's needed be it scooters, diabetic shoes, hospital beds or a host of other medical products promoted to the elderly.
Most patients, even those that frail and elderly, need to be as active as possible. Use it or lose it certainly applies to ones mobility. Walk if you can, use crutches or a walker to assist if needed, and even a wheelchair that you self-propel as a healthier alternative than a motorized scooter. Some patients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or strokes are not ever going to ambulate again and are clearly going to benefit from the latter.
Most patients want one because it is difficult or painful for them to walk. While physicians strive to alleviate pain and suffering when it is associated with illness or injury, life is inherently painful. From birth onwards, pain is inevitable. Doctors should not attempt to completely eliminate pain from life. Limit it to manageable levels absolutely, but not at the expense of the patients' autonomy and overall health.
Patients should report their difficulties with walking to their doctors. Their doctors should evaluate them and cure what can be cured and treat to alleviate symptoms of those problems that cannot be cured. It is better to walk with some pain than to never walk without pain. The motorized scooter should be an option of last resort for those patients who would not otherwise be physically able to get around in any other way because the less you walk; the less you're going to walk.
