When people today mention erectile dysfunction or one of the three drugs now rather well known as its treatment, no one worries. Well, that's not strictly true. If you go back twenty years, any mention of erectile dysfunction was taboo. If anyone broke the silence, it was met with embarrassment. It was not the type of health problem people talked about in public. Today, television routinely carries ads and, wherever you look in the media generally, there are few inhibitions when it comes to discussing sexual problems.

Yet there are a hard core of people whose values are offended if erectile dysfunction drugs are advertised on television or radio during the day. These are the parents who then earn the task of explaining to their curious children what can go wrong when the erection fails to appear when expected. The voices raised in complaint often come through religious and family-based organizations. They are met by those who defend the First Amendment against all-comers. That the words may offend some, does not prevent the words from being used. So both the marketers who devise the advertising campaigns, and the television and radio stations that carry the ads, refuse any limits on their right to run the ads. Indeed, even the modest requests for a compromise on time are rejected. Most of the men who might need information on the latest drugs will watch or listen after 9 pm. But the broadcasters are not prepared to schedule the ads at times when children are less likely to be watching or listening. As far as they are concerned, it's for parents to police their children's use of televisions and radios.

It's therefore interesting to see one of the manufacturers so publicly announcing its withdrawal of television ads. According to the CEO, the company intends to show itself full of integrity. Perhaps surprisingly, one of the ways in which this new-found integrity is to be demonstrated is by being seen to listen to family values groups. We should also say the company has a number of other problems with its "integrity" - there have been a number of whistleblower disclosures revealing a less than ethical approach to selling their drugs for off-label use and more general concerns about the safety of some of their drugs. It's not clear that starting over in this way is going to rescue the manufacturer from all its problems.

From the sidelines, the other two manufacturers are watching with interest. All the news headlines about withdrawing the ads is great marketing for all three products. Indeed, Cialis which came into the market three years after the little blue pills, has now become the number 1 seller in some countries. The combination of advertising and word-of-mouth has been spreading the word about how effective it is. The nickname of the weekend pill has focussed attention on the key advantage. No matter what the other two may say, no other product can match the thirty-six hours of sexual responsiveness. The best others manage is about five or, if you're lucky, six hours. Perhaps against that performance advantage, it's not surprising to see one competitor giving up.