Hurting Fish for Asthma Awareness

Have you seen the NoAttacks.org television Public Service Announcement (PSA) with a gasping fish in a rapidly diminishing water bowl to promote “asthma awareness?”

I find the “Gasping Fish” PSAs to be disgusting and cruel.

Why make a fish so graphically suffer so America can be more aware of asthma? I don’t understand the logic of those who created the PSA — it’s okay to force a water away from a fish but it isn’t okay for children to gasp for air?

Is that the argument of the advertisements? One cruelty cannot condone another. The NoAttacks.org website defends their indefensible PSA by claiming this:

No fish were harmed during the making of this public service announcement. Fish handlers were present at all times during the shoot to manage the care and well being of the fish on hand.

That excuse doesn’t cut it if you have seen the PSAs. The fish are in distress. Fish aren’t actors. Fish only know the crisis of survival and the wages of death from a sin not their own.

If NoAttacks.org feel their treatment of the fish was fair — why not make a new PSA by placing a plastic dry cleaning bag over a child’s head until the kid turns a gasping blue — oh, wait… that would be cruel.

81 comments

  • I have seen that ad, David. It is hard to watch the fish flopping around in the water draining away. I guess cruelty is everywhere on TV, especially on the news. Context matters. The ad is intentionally cruel in its creation while TV reporters usually only report the cruelty, they don’t create it on their own to show you.

  • Heya soos!
    Yes, you’re on the point of my argument. I think it’s ill-advised to torture fish in the name of making people more dramatically aware of asthma. Intent is the core of my argument and I thank you for making it clear I was clear! :)

  • i don’t like dying fish either the death is slow and being film if done to end becomes snuff.

  • Hi tajuki —
    Thank you for your comment. Your take on the issue is interesting and important. You have given me even more to think about on this matter!

  • Never seen it and hope I never do…I’m sure they could have gotten asthma awareness across without torturing a living breathing thing.

  • Hi Robin!
    Yes, these PSAs may be shown on a regional basis so they may not be available in your area. I see the “Dying Fish is Like Having Asthma” one at least twice a week here in Jersey City.
    They have a series of three or so commercials but the worst one features a goldfish in a bowl of water.
    The water is slowly drained from the bowl.
    The fish goes crazy trying to swim away to find more water but only ends up swimming in circles in the bowl as the water continues to drain away.
    Finally, we get an up-close shot of a dying fish “gasping for air” and a child’s voice is heard saying, “When I have an asthma attack, I feel like a fish with no water.”
    It’s completely disgusting.
    It turns your stomach.
    Here’s a direct link to their color print ad:
    http://www.noattacks.org/Fish4C.pdf

  • i am to agree with you. Thank you.

  • Thanks for stopping by today, tajuki. It is a pleasure to meet you and I hope you will come back here again soon! :grin:

  • I remember thinking the same thing when I saw the goldfish ad. As the owner of several goldfish, I would never think of taking them out of the tank. It pains me to see the fish ad or the billboards.
    I wonder if this is a trend in PSA filmmaking?
    Recently, there were news reports about the “Smurfs” being blown up by bombs in a foreign PSA designed to raise awareness about children affected by warfare. The ad was disturbing to children and it is only aired in the evenings. The producers of the ad said that they needed to produce a spot that would get people’s attention because images of starving kids would no longer shock people.
    What happens when society isn’t shocked by images of fish or Smurfs being threatened? What will PSA filmmakers do to get our attention next time?

  • Hey Chris!
    You make a beautiful and important comparison between the fish suffering and the improper use of the Smurfs in the PSA. I think the tendency in our current America is to get more cruel and “shocking” in order that attention be paid to what is being sold. The problem with that philosophy is the attention provided creates a retching in the giver.
    My fear is we are tumbling down a narrow passage where we will be treated, but never thrilled, to even crasser and more craven images that will, sooner than later, result in the unwilling witnessing of intentional killing and mortal wounding for selling soap and asthma awareness.
    The gruesome wonderment is — who’s idea was it to drain the water from the fish bowl? It was obviously someone unlike you and me — someone who has never cared for a goldfish or loved a pet or had even the slightest inclination to love something other than the human.
    I’ve said it here before and I’ll mention it again now: Count Leo Tolstoy said in 1921, “As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will always be war.”

  • Ooooooh, a new look here David! :)
    Unfortunately, I’ve seen the fish commercial, and I feel it’s totally unnecessary. There’s no sense in harming another living being just to give an example of suffering.

  • Hi Carla!
    Yes, there’s a new look here. I will be addressing what’s happening in today’s post. :)
    I’m glad you’ve seen the horrible PSA. It still boggles the mind.

  • blogging advice

    Joi Ito has some great advice about blogging! One of Mr. Ito’s ideas is:

  • blogging advice

    Joi Ito has some great advice about blogging! One of Mr. Ito’s ideas is:

  • You rationale in the above discussions are rediculous. A childs life verses a goldfish. I will take the fish life to save the child any day and if you disagree with that then you are seriously deranged.
    The point that you are all missing is that they can’t get the message out there to the people without a graphic representation. That is the problem. People dont understand that asthma kills.
    If a fish has to endure a few minutes of gasping to get that point across to the masses then so be it.
    I say its about time we shocked the community into recognizing a dangerous disease.

  • Gail —
    Using a suffering fish to promote asthma awareness in a television commercial is cruel and hypocritical no matter how you slice it. It isn’t like the fish is actually saving a child. You can animate the fish or find another way to get your message across than to purposefully cause suffering.
    There are companies who are sensitive to animal suffering and I celebrate their newfound humanity:
    http://www.caringconsumer.com/products_welchs.asp

  • I totally agree…….they could have easily used a cartoon. Far from helping, it really makes me question the organization. I donate to a lot of causes but to torture a helpless animal to make a point about a child suffering is just inexcusable.
    I don’t understand the logic of the person who said that torturing that fish saved a child’s life. What is she thinking????????????

  • Hi Carolyn —
    I am inclined to agree with you. A cartoon provides the same effect as a real fish. Then child and fish do not have to suffer together to help make an important point.

  • Hi Carolyn —
    I am inclined to agree with you. A cartoon provides the same effect as a real fish. Then child and fish do not have to suffer together to help make an important point.

  • Having that poor goldfish flop around painfully gasping for breath is a totally unnessecary and completely vruel way to promote and get a point across about asthma. People know perfectly well that astma involves an inability to breath. That goldfish is a living too and it was in total pain and stress during that stupid commercial. “No fish were harmed during the making of this public service announcement”? How can they say that? Of course it was harmed! A flopping goldfish is not in any way, shape, or form needed to illistrate an asthma attack. Just disgusting!

  • Having that poor goldfish flop around painfully gasping for breath is a totally unnessecary and completely vruel way to promote and get a point across about asthma. People know perfectly well that astma involves an inability to breath. That goldfish is a living too and it was in total pain and stress during that stupid commercial. “No fish were harmed during the making of this public service announcement”? How can they say that? Of course it was harmed! A flopping goldfish is not in any way, shape, or form needed to illistrate an asthma attack. Just disgusting!

  • I’m with you all the way Myles, and welcome to Urban Semiotic!

  • I’m with you all the way Myles, and welcome to Urban Semiotic!

  • I was disgusted to see the noattacks.org ad tonight, in the middle of an infomercial… I was sipping my tea and … bang! That awful image of the poor little goldfish gasping for air, and belive me readers, it was no one second experience! This is not even about the fish, though I feel for those poor little creatures… This is about using shocking tactics to make a point… And you know what they achieved, those idiots who created, financed and approved the ad? That I will NEVER, I mean NEVER, donate a cent to the organizations who created, financed or even just approved of the ad. I will literally turn my back on the problem. I am very sorry for those human sufferers of this terrible condition. But my attention will NOT be caught through animal cruelty. You have only provoked my disgust towards you and my indifference towards the problem; and my children cannot bear watch the ad or anything depicting or reminding me of that ad. There are better ways. Find them, otherwise the very people you are trying to help will suffer. A word for those idiots running, creating or financing that campaign: compassion is the first step to true social advancement.

  • I was disgusted to see the noattacks.org ad tonight, in the middle of an infomercial… I was sipping my tea and … bang! That awful image of the poor little goldfish gasping for air, and belive me readers, it was no one second experience! This is not even about the fish, though I feel for those poor little creatures… This is about using shocking tactics to make a point… And you know what they achieved, those idiots who created, financed and approved the ad? That I will NEVER, I mean NEVER, donate a cent to the organizations who created, financed or even just approved of the ad. I will literally turn my back on the problem. I am very sorry for those human sufferers of this terrible condition. But my attention will NOT be caught through animal cruelty. You have only provoked my disgust towards you and my indifference towards the problem; and my children cannot bear watch the ad or anything depicting or reminding me of that ad. There are better ways. Find them, otherwise the very people you are trying to help will suffer. A word for those idiots running, creating or financing that campaign: compassion is the first step to true social advancement.

  • I was very disappointed to see that animal cruelty was used, no matter how they wish to justify it, to make a point (re: noattacks.org asthma ad). I do not want my children to learn that the end justifies the means. Nonsense! You have lost a supporter, rather than an advocate. SHAME ON YOU.
    To others: we should complain directly to the organization/s commissioning that ad. Any ideas? Write to me and let’s write to them together.

  • I was very disappointed to see that animal cruelty was used, no matter how they wish to justify it, to make a point (re: noattacks.org asthma ad). I do not want my children to learn that the end justifies the means. Nonsense! You have lost a supporter, rather than an advocate. SHAME ON YOU.
    To others: we should complain directly to the organization/s commissioning that ad. Any ideas? Write to me and let’s write to them together.

  • I walk by a billboard of that everyday going into work. Being asthmatic, I thought that the analogy of the “fish without water” is extremely accurate and effective. Seeing the actual television ad… well, it’s intentionally shocking. You can feel the fish’s desperate struggle to get oxygen and its suffering, and the voiceover clearly explains that this is what the viewer’s child feels when s/he isn’t able to breathe.
    I suppose the ad is effective, which is why the goldfish is the key imagery for the campaign. It probably will get a few parents to wake up to what their child is going through if they’ve never had asthma.
    At the same time, I’ve had the idea that this is a very ironic way to sell the message (which is why I googled the topic and found this page). I’m surprised that they have gotten away with tormenting a fish for a shoot. I’d imagine that they didn’t get the whole thing just perfectly in just one take… since I work in video production.
    I’m not an animal rights type… I think that nature itself is already cruel and the interests of humans are reasonable to place first, but I also don’t think we should needlessly cause suffering. I’m not coming out against the concept of the ad itself, but the noattacks.org people should not kid themselves. They wanted to show a suffering living thing in order to shock people.

  • I walk by a billboard of that everyday going into work. Being asthmatic, I thought that the analogy of the “fish without water” is extremely accurate and effective. Seeing the actual television ad… well, it’s intentionally shocking. You can feel the fish’s desperate struggle to get oxygen and its suffering, and the voiceover clearly explains that this is what the viewer’s child feels when s/he isn’t able to breathe.
    I suppose the ad is effective, which is why the goldfish is the key imagery for the campaign. It probably will get a few parents to wake up to what their child is going through if they’ve never had asthma.
    At the same time, I’ve had the idea that this is a very ironic way to sell the message (which is why I googled the topic and found this page). I’m surprised that they have gotten away with tormenting a fish for a shoot. I’d imagine that they didn’t get the whole thing just perfectly in just one take… since I work in video production.
    I’m not an animal rights type… I think that nature itself is already cruel and the interests of humans are reasonable to place first, but I also don’t think we should needlessly cause suffering. I’m not coming out against the concept of the ad itself, but the noattacks.org people should not kid themselves. They wanted to show a suffering living thing in order to shock people.

  • Welcome to Urban Semiotic, Bryan, and I thank you for your thoughtful and caring comment. It means a lot that a person like you — who suffers with asthma — can feel for the fish who suffered throughout the filming of an advertisement that is supposed to make your case to those who don’t understand your condition.

  • Welcome to Urban Semiotic, Bryan, and I thank you for your thoughtful and caring comment. It means a lot that a person like you — who suffers with asthma — can feel for the fish who suffered throughout the filming of an advertisement that is supposed to make your case to those who don’t understand your condition.

  • I also have never seen such a disgusting ad. I have to change channels when it comes on. Perhaps we should be sending these complaints to the TV channels instead of advertisers. A typical Ad agency will consider complaints as positive evidence that someone is taking notice.

  • I also have never seen such a disgusting ad. I have to change channels when it comes on. Perhaps we should be sending these complaints to the TV channels instead of advertisers. A typical Ad agency will consider complaints as positive evidence that someone is taking notice.

  • Welcome to Urban Semiotic, Jon!
    I like your idea of going directly to the TV stations to complain. Perhaps that sort of local, grassroots, action would get these disgusting ads removed forever.

  • Welcome to Urban Semiotic, Jon!
    I like your idea of going directly to the TV stations to complain. Perhaps that sort of local, grassroots, action would get these disgusting ads removed forever.

  • I noticed these comments are older, but I have recently come across these comercials. I have to say, it is utterly disturbing. I can’t watch the poor fish without feeling agony. I can not believe they haven’t removed the ad yet. Is there some kind of petition we can sign? Thanks

  • I noticed these comments are older, but I have recently come across these comercials. I have to say, it is utterly disturbing. I can’t watch the poor fish without feeling agony. I can not believe they haven’t removed the ad yet. Is there some kind of petition we can sign? Thanks

  • I think we were able to shout them down before, Roxana, and it seems they think it’s safe to come back! I am appalled to learn the commercial is back on the air! Disgusting! Write to them on their website to tell them what you think. The link is in my article.

  • I think we were able to shout them down before, Roxana, and it seems they think it’s safe to come back! I am appalled to learn the commercial is back on the air! Disgusting! Write to them on their website to tell them what you think. The link is in my article.

  • That horrible, disgusting ad is back on the air! I just saw it tonight for the first time. It upset me so badly I came online to search for who was responsible for it and found this site. I went to the link you have posted for noattacks.org , but I see no email address on there or any way to contact them? Do you happen to have a contact? I’d love to send them a scathing email or letter via snail mail. Either will do. I am so outraged by this ad I HAVE to say something to someone. It made me sick to my stomach. I didn’t even think people in the country could get away with showing something so horrible. Whatever happened to animal cruely?!?!?

    • The ad appears to come and go in waves — leaving waves of disgust and outrage in its wake — and that’s the entire point of the scheme: To shock, not educate.

      I don’t know how to reach the people who paid to create that awful ad. If you hunt them down, please visit back and let us know what you find.

  • I am a “People Eating Tasty Animals” PETA member, and even *I* am disgusted by this commercial. And here’s why:

    Even fish used for FOOD aren’t forced to gasp for oxygen like that, they are put out of their misery before that can even happen. Goldfish aren’t even used for food, either. And, I’m sorry, but if a fish is flailing about like that, it IS suffering. NO ifs, ands OR buts about it, PERIOD.

    By the way, speaking of “PETA”, where was the REAL PETA on this one, huh??? Just sayin’…

  • I can’t understand the reason of this commercial. My 5 years-old son, cried when he saw this ad. He said it was so cruel for the fish. He rushes to my arms crying every time he sees this ad on TV. Now, I gotta be pending to turn the the TV off when he is watching it. People who made this ad can find another way to show about asthma and NOT showing the poor fish feeling agony. What a shame. PLease…STOP SHOWING THIS AD. !

    • Thank you for your comment, and I appreciate the very real effect of the commercial on your son. It is a horrible thing to place on television and it must be stopped!

  • I found this place from looking up information on the ad itself.
    As someone who is borderline asthmatic (never properly diagnosed, but if I’m not, I’m darn close to it) this is a PSA that I am going to be attempting to reproduce in my Advanced Studios class, since I am going to school for Photography. As it was said higher up, if the ad (or my photo reproduction of the ad) gets peoples’ attention about Asthma, then that’s good. A cartoon wouldn’t be as poignant, because people can tell cartoons are fake. And the fish won’t be out of water more than ten seconds at a time, I’ll focus on something else, then put the fish in place, take the shot, and put it back in the water. The fish will be out of the water for less time than they are when people clean the tanks.
    Besides, if given the choice between a fish dying out of water, and a child dying because of an asthma attack that a parent (or teacher, or friend, or-) didn’t take seriously, I’d choose the fish.

  • Pingback: The Irrevocable Moral Abyss: Berkshire Hathaway and the Tastelessness of GEICO Sushi | The United Stage of America

  • I just saw this ad for the very first time just a little while ago and immediately went to the site and saw that it was sponsored by both the EPA and the AD Council. So I wrote the following to both and also sent my comments to PETA. I found this site and realized that others were already aware of this ad and I am so pleased to see that others feel the same way. Take care and Merry Christmas to all.

    “I was appalled when I recently saw the ad for helping children with asthma. Though of course I applaud the effort to help children with this issue, I cannot say the same for your choice of advertising. I am aware of the aesthetics of advertising – it needs to be a strong messege, but to put a living creature into stress just to make a point is in very poor taste. Why, since the ad is for children would you not have used a real child going through a real asthma attack? Because that would be considered to be in poor taste. Yet from a medical standpoint that probably would have made a more personal connection and be reality which would still hit everyone hard. So why do you feel you need to put a poor fish through a stressful situation and even endanger its very life just to make a point? Could not the same have been accomplished with a computer generated fish if you felt compelled to have to use a fish in the first place? Why do you show such little compassion? Because to you it is just a simple goldfish and they can be handled however you see fit and it doesn’t matter if it dies – it’s just a goldfish. It’s actions like this that make animal abuse a commonplace and accepted behavior. I would hope that you will reconsider this ad and any others that would be equally unacceptable.”

    • Thank you for your wonderful phone call, Sabine, and I love it that you were terrifically proactive in filing a formal protest. It takes people like you who are willing to stand up and say — “Hey, this isn’t right!” — for change to take place.

  • I will not spend money on any product that is this cruel to fish, animals, birds ect. TAKE THIS AD OFF NOW, AND DO NOT use ANYTHING THAT BREATHS again for your pockets.

    • Well said, Gloria! We must vote with our pocketbooks. Don’t give our money or our support to cruel things — or we risk getting cruel things back!

      • Kill a fish. Save a child. Are you saying the fish is more important? Some parents might not see the danger of asthma, so they use the words of a child with asthma ‘when I have an asthma attack, I feel like a fish with no water’ and the startling image of a 50 cent goldfish gasping for breath.
        It’s no different than the new ads that just started in this state about cleaning up power plants, with a baby carriage, and the FRIGHTENING sound of a baby coughing, gasping, and wheezing. That ad actually frightens me, because the CHILD is struggling to breathe

        • It’s all about intention. Making a TV advertisement by intentionally inflicting cruelty on a fish sends a hypocritical message. Nobody is inflicting anything unnecessarily cruel on the sounds of a child gasping for breath because that is naturally how the afflicted child sounds.

          • But they are inflicting something cruel onto the child, causing them to cough, gasp, and wheeze. Babies don’t sound like that particular ad does unless something is drastically wrong with them.

            Again, a $0.50 fish, versus the priceless life of a child. If a teacher, parent, coach, or any other authority figure doesn’t understand, and therefore doesn’t act on an asthma attack, it could mean the death of the child. Yes the fish might suffer for the 10 seconds or so it’s out of the water, but they’ll live. In my one photography course I actually reproduced that ad with a live fish. And you know what? Amazingly *gasp* all five fish that I bought to use during the photoshoot survived!

          • It would be illegal to inflict a coughing fit on a child in order to make a television commercial. They’re merely recording live, wild, sound for the advertisement. Nothing out-of-the-ordinary there.

            Life is not priceless. Ask any insurance company and they’ll give you actuarial tables and benefit payouts to prove that point.

            Some of us price put prices on life and others of us value suffering over a meaningless pricetag.

  • Pingback: Luck Runs Out… of Beating Dead Horses | Celebrity Semiotic

  • I was looking for a link for fish cruelty not because of this ad, but I saw a fish in music video out of water, a rapper named j. cole, it was a song called nobody’s perfect, featuring missy eliott. I was wondering what the hell a fish out of water has to do with anything in the video. I did see this commercial though years ago, and thankfully haven’t seen it in a while. Maybe they got the message. I have asthma also and the commercial made me ill. There are an infinite amount of ways to communicate with the public on awareness that don’t have to involve a fish suffering. I was so happy to see that others were as outraged as I am. Please be watchful of ANYWHERE you see a fish out of water, any t.v. show, movie, wherever it is and let them know in no uncertain terms it’s unacceptable.

  • Why after all these years and complaints is this horrible commercial still being aired. I went to the website but could’t locate a contact email to write to them. I turn the channel everytime this commercial comes on. I can’t bear to watch it.

  • I was ABSOLUTELY horrified when I saw this commercial for the first time the other day. This ad is cruel and disgusting. I nearly burst into tears. How about we shove some people in a vacuum so that everyone sees what a suffering human looks like… Absolutely disgusting, I cant believe it is still even on the air.

    • They must be delighted with the attention their cruelty receives, Jazmin. I can’t believe that someone with asthma would condone those ads — why create unnecessary suffering just to make a point about your suffering? The ad demeans the original sufferer.

  • if only they had some kind of technology where you could create an animation of a realistic fish… hmmm… too bad nothing like that exists :P disgusting.

    • I think using a cartoon fish in place of the real fish would be even more absurd and upsetting, because it would absolutely prove what a stupid idea the whole campaign in from the notion of “compassion” they’re trying to claim for people with asthma!

      Why not take live kittens and put them in a plastic bag and film it as they begin to suffocate? Same idea, right?

  • I absolutely 100% agree with you on this. I saw the commercial 30 seconds ago and i actually googled “did the asthma awareness commercial use an actual fish” and your article was the first to pop up. It’s ludicrous that is is legal and I will make damn sure that when I become an animal cruelty investigator, animals will NOT be subject to this kind of treatment. Even fish! Together, we can all make a change. :)

  • Exactly, I just saw the ad and googled fish ad is cruel and this popped up. I’m not an pet person, but that was the most sad thing I have ever seen. Ads are getting sick by the day sadly …. Poor fish :(

  • I have asthma, and love animals. I never agreed with the cruelty shown to the fish in these adds. More than that I always thought it was a poor analogy. An attack does not feel like trying to breathe a foreign substance, ie a fish trying to breathe air or a human breathe water. It feels more akin to trying to breath through a coffee straw while someone is sitting on your chest. The air is there, you can feel it, get some in, but it gets harder and harder as your airways constrict, and your chest gets heavier. The air is always there,but harder and harder to get inside. Using the fish in this manner was cruel and unnecessary. Many other images would be better analogies. A cgi small elephant sitting on someone’s chest, or a person trying to breathe through a tiny straw are two off the top of my head. I hope to never see another add like this advocating anything. Again, unnecessary and cruel.

  • I just saw this psa for the first time a few days ago, and a couple of times since. I was so upset I went online to see if anyone was complaining about it, and I found this post. And as horrified as I am every time they run that spot showing that poor fish being TORTURED (sorry, but there’s no other word for what they’re doing to that fish), I am even more horrified to find that this spot has actually been around for YEARS.

    I can’t understand why anyone this this kind of animal cruelty is okay. Yes, kids have asthma, and they suffer. (I have asthma myself, so I know a little bit about what that’s like!) But it is NOT okay, and it is DEFINITELY not necessary to mistreat animals in order to get that point across. When I’m watching that spot, the last thing on my mind is the plight of an asthmatic child. All I can think about is what that poor fish is going through. And it’s totally unconscionable, as far as I’m concerned. Yes, they show the fish (or A fish, at least) being returned to the water at the end. But who knows if it’s even the same fish? Whether the fish died or not is almost irrelevant to me anyway. Either way, it obviously suffered, and that’s what upsets me. I find the whole thing appalling, and I find it almost more appalling that anyone could watch that psa and NOT feel that it’s very, very wrong.

    • Thank you for sharing your eloquent thoughts. This ad has been on television for at least the last eight years — and even in the ongoing eye of our outrage — it continues to run. The television stations are just as culpable for its ongoing promotion as the people who made the PSA.

  • I am glad to have found this blog. I have written to the ad council twice about this ad. It makes me feel absolutely FURIOUS each time I see it. If I had made this ad, once realizing the error, I would pull it. Once again, a business that doesn’t give a crap about anything but money. Makes me LIVID! An ad like this TEACHES children that it is okay to mistreat fish. My god, I feel angry.

  • The commercial is to promote asthma awareness in kids. I love how no one was listening to the commercial it’s a kid speaking explaining how they feel when having an attack Parents and Adults are often ignorant and seem to ignore the signs and symptoms… I have had to many kids to list come into my Emergency Room who were having a serious attack and ended up being placed into a pediatric intensive care unit intubated and IV’s. Your worried about the fish in the commercial you guys should look up statistics on asthma hospitalization and deaths the big picture here is awareness clearly the commercial got your attention you just failed to listen to the words…
    http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/asthma-statistics.aspx

    • If the point of the advertisement is to create sympathy for an asthmatic child, then the failure of the campaign in massive and, frankly, ridiculous. You do not create empathy attachment for one thing by making another real thing suffer in example.

      I would have much preferred having a child sit there, alone, on screen, describing to us, in her own words, what it feels to be a fish out of water trying to catch a breath.

      • Again it’s received your attention, I understand that fish is a living thing… But think about that child it breaks my heart to watch a child come into the ER and have to intubated them. Explaining to the parents is always impossible they simply don’t get there child is breathing but it’s because we’re controlling it by a machine… Watch a 2yr old child breath helplessly, grasping for air then shoving a tube down their throat, pushing on their little chest with so much for it appears your actually breaking them in order in for them to survive. Watch that video and tell me how you feel about that fish. I’m shocked everyone is worried about this gold fish that can be bought at freaking Walmart but a child that takes months to create, years to grow and centuries to live I’m blown away by how ignorant can be

        • The reason we’re so upset is that there’s no reason to even bring a live fish into the equation since that has nothing to do with asthma.

          Why not throw a dog in a swimming pool and hold it under water until it starts gasping for air and put that on TV as a commercial advocating childhood asthma? Same effect, right? People would positively respond to that message!

          I’d much rather have you on TV, reading your comments here — minus your defense of the suffering fish — and I would find it much more honest and authentic and convincing than the current ad campaign.

Share Your Thoughts:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s