Dtc Advertising Pros And Cons

Ads for pharmaceutical drugs are everywhere. They are in magazines, on television and radio, on billboards, and on the little bags that you get from the pharmacist. These days it is difficult to get away from all the drug advertising. All these ads are for products that require a doctor's prescription. The goal of advertising is to increase profits. By advertising so heavily for drugs that the majority of the population does not need, pharmaceutical companies attempt to create as large a consumer base as they can. In advertising directly to the consumer, the drug companies accomplish two objectives. First, they get information directly to the consumer. Second, they promote the product and

Despite this, the industry did not alter its ways, maintaining that its ad campaigns were "educational," and that people were able to make their own decisions about what they purchased (Payer 66). However, it is evident that the advertisements produced by the pharmaceutical industry are designed for the very purpose of making it difficult for people to make these decisions independently. This marketing produces a large number of often deceptive, misleading tactics which have a large influence on both consumers and medical practitioners. The chief beneficiaries of this marketing are not the consumers but the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

There are proponents of DTC prescription drug ads. They argue that “the ads inform patients about diseases and possible treatments, encourage people to seek medical advice, help remove stigma associated with medical conditions, and provide needed sales revenue to fund costly research and development (R&D) of new drugs (Drug Ads ProCon.org).” On the flip side opponents argue “that DTC drug ads misinform patients, promote drugs before long-term safety-profiles can be known, medicalize and stigmatize normal conditions and bodily functions like wrinkles and low testosterone, waste valuable medical appointment time, and have led to our society’s overuse of prescription drugs (Drug Ads ProCon.org).”

In 2015, the pharmaceutical industry spent over 27 billion dollars on advertising. The two greatest components of this effort were promotional advertising and free medication sampling, which the pharmaceuticals invested 15.5 and 5.7 billion dollars respectively (“Persuading the Prescribers”). Promotional advertising involves direct contact with health professionals, the most common being extravagant lunch conferences held for physicians and their staff. On the other hand, sampling involves distributing free sample of medications to physicians, who then have a choice of providing these samples to patients. As a result of these methods, the industry has seen revenue around $400 billion with 90% of physicians having a relationship with a drug company (Campbell 2007). Moreover, the prices of prescriptions continue to rise; a copay of a generic drug is $11.72, preferred brand drug is $36.37 and a specialty drug is $58.37 (Coleman and Geneson 2014). Although the profits are immense in the numbers demonstrated above, it is no surprise when pharmaceutical drug companies elevate their prices even more. For instance, recently Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of their medication Daraprim from $13.50 to $750. Keep in mind, this medication is used for threatening parasitic infections, aids, and cancer with alternative options currently found to be inefficient (Pollack 2015). Another example of this practice involves cycloserine, a drug used to

Anyone who has stayed up late watching television, or has paged through a current magazine, has seen advertisements for medications. They often depict an individual, or couple, that is strolling along the beach, playing with their grandchildren, or enjoying a long forgotten hobby. Although the Food and Drug Administration has imposed stricter regulations on drug advertisements over the last several years, there remains an innate distraction and misleading by the drug companies in order to promote their product. “Evidence suggests that direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs increases pharmaceutical sales and both helps to avert underuse of medicines and leads to potential overuse” (Donohue, Cevasco, & Rosenthal, 2007, p. 673). This paper will critique both a prescription and over-the-counter medication advertisement, discuss the pathophysiology and mechanism of action for the gastrointestinal disorder it treats, as well as compare and contrast the two advertisements.

Commercialized on TV as the only solution to our numerous problems, Big Pharma preys on people who struggle through life. Although seemingly meant to heal, pharmaceutical drugs have destroyed countless American lives instead because gullible patients rush to their doctor demanding prescriptions. Want to lose weight? Give me a pill. Want more intense sexual encounters? I need a pill. Want to grow longer, shinier hair? Hey, I’ll just pop a pill. Although some medical conditions do require medication, not every case of discomfort should be treated with highly addictive prescription meds nor should those drugs be trafficked via commercials that target a hypochondriacal nation of couch potatoes too lazy to put forth the time and effort to prevent disease. Instead, far too many Americans simply find a quick fix at their local pharmacy. These prescriptions lead to addiction and in the end death. Therefore, if I could take away any one invention from mankind it would be the crass commercialization of pharmaceuticals.

Annually, the US spends $300 billion dollars on pharmaceutical drugs. This is due to the over-diagnosing of certain conditions. Everyday, Americans are exposed to an enormous amount of advertisements for medications of all kinds. For example, 1 in 10 Americans are taking

We in America tend to take medications for almost any problem we have, from headaches to gastrointestinal pain, to more serious chronic disorders such as depression and attention deficit disorder. While many of the uses of such medications may be necessary and legitimate, many are not, and due to this fact, many people become dependent on medications, mentally, and or physically. This problem is not simply the fault of the individual; in fact, the blame can also be placed upon the medical community, and the pharmaceutical companies who produce the drugs. How often can one turn on the television to see advertisements for Claritin, Aspirin, Pepto-Bismol, or even Zoloft or Ritalin? The pharmaceutical industry is motivated by monetary

The United States and New Zealand are the only developed countries that allow direct-to-consumer advertising. Whether the practice of direct to consumer advertising is beneficial to the consumers or not is a highly debated subject with both positions presenting sound reasoning for their position. Whether the practice is beneficial or not to the consumer is not the question, but rather, is advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers ethical? To analyze this question I will use Rawls’s second principle of distributive justice for analysis.

Society undermines these ads just as it undermines the promotion of various medicines on the market. Unaware of the dangers caused by pharmaceutical drugs, consumers are encouraged to purchase medications that are capitalistically endorsed. Pharmaceutical businesses and the government suggest that there are minor flaws with prescription drugs, but ultimately, they are safe to use. Although the marketing and promotional techniques for pharmaceuticals are completely different when compared to illegal substances, they are still extremely similar to one another. Several pharmaceuticals are just as addicting as any illegal drug and they are just as profitable as well.

The FDA claimed in its July/August 2004 issue that truthful DTC advertising encourages patients to talk more about health problems, removes the stigma surrounding certain diseases, and even reminds patients to take their medication when they see advertisements.

Right now, at this very moment, somewhere in America, there is a commercial playing, advertising a prescription drug, while a family sits around and watches it or subconsciously takes in what the commercial has to offer while they stare at the bright screens of their cellular phones. The widespread media of prescription medicines, specifically amphetamines, sedatives, and tranquilizers, allow pills like ‘Xanax’ (a tranquilizer used to treat depression), Zoloft (antidepressant), or Adderall (a medication used to treat ADHD) to become trusted, widely known, household names.

There are many direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs. On television, magazines, radio etc, you see the most recent advertisements for prescription drugs. After some people see the advertisements they soon rush over to their doctor and their illness and life would be perfectly pain and stress free. Making the public conscious of options for treatment is not a bad thing. But these false advertisements are misleading consumers onto unnecessary treatment.

Pharmaceutical drug companies spent nearly $4.6 billion more on advertising aimed directly at consumers in 2009 than in 1995. This dramatic increase is largely due to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to reform their standards regarding direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising. Prior to the changes that occurred in 1997, all DTC advertisements had to include a brief summary of the drug’s warnings, precautions, adverse effects, and situations in which the drug should not be used. In place of the brief summary, the FDA’s new regulations introduced two new criteria: the major statements clause and the adequate provision clause (Ventola). Instead of a brief summary, the major statements clause requires advertisements to disclose only

Think about how often you are watching your favorite show on television and all of a sudden you are interrupted by a commercial. The commercial begins with the following words, “Do you suffer with …” and this question follows with the following sentence, “if so, then talk to your doctor about … (the name of the medication that is being advertised)”. These prescription drug advertisements are being shown all over the United States multiple times a day. It is these advertisements that are used for publicity and marketing that are affecting Americans. The majority of Americans engage in watching television. The prescription drug advertisements do have a positive impact on Americans but, these advertisements do more harm than good.