Most of Weil's complaint is valid, but I can easily think of two counter-examples where:

1) The patient is unlikely to mention the problem if he isn't aware that there is a highly-successful drug therapy. This example would be erectile dysfunction. Before Viagra, Cialis, etc. all the medical treatments for ED were so horrible that most sufferers would rather just do without. Before the ads, I think a lot of men would also have been ashamed to mention such a problem to their doctors. Now they can see they have plenty of company and seek treatment.

2) The patient might already be on one drug, but not be aware that switching to another equally-effective drug would offer some feature they would highly value. This example would be the new birth control pills that women can take continuously for months without a one week break every month. That "period" each month really has no clinical benefit and was included just to give the illusion of a normal menstrual cycle to "reassure the patient".