This same thing happened with Wellbutrin. A non-SSRI and non-tricylic antidepressant, it worked where no other antidepressant had succeeded before. And amazingly enough, it curbed the urge to smoke, an unexpected side-effect. So the pharmaceutical company immediately sought approval for the drug called Zyban, to be used to help smoking cessation. But double the amount of Wellbutrin, is very dangerous and again potentially fatal.
It is becoming a matter of semantics. It is also becoming a matter of the pharmaceutical companies increasing their bottom line. And the FDA is allowing it. Instead of saying that Prozac is indicated for the treatment of PMS or that Wellbutrin is indicated for the treatment in a smoking cessation program, they repackage the drug and market it under a different name. But the ingredients are the same. The drug is identical. Not only does the FDA allow this, but Wellbutrin is covered by health insurance. Zyban isn't. The semantics here are powerful in a financial sense for the patient as well. The ramifications of this renaming process are staggering. The copay on Wellbutrin is whatever your insurance has decided. But Zyban is over $100 per month out of your pocket.
When the FDA allows such repackaging of pharmaceuticals, with all of the dangers involved being well known, then it is allowing a potentially dangerous situation to exist in the health care of the American public. Let's assume for a moment that someone had a serious reaction to Prozac and stopped taking it. Now, several years later, the same patient goes to the doctor and is told that there's a "new" product on the market to treat her PMS symptoms. Of course, she jumps at the chance, and presto, a new allergic reaction. The same would hold true for the smoker who took Zyban and discovered too late that their health has been compromised by the pharmaceutical company's desire for higher profits. Why can't the FDA license Prozac and Wellbutrin for treatment of a multitude of conditions, and keep the name the same? Is it in the best interests of the patient? I doubt it. Instead it is in the best interests of the manufacturer and their stockholders. And with that, it becomes an issue not only of medical ethics, but of public health as well.
