False Marketing And Advertisement By Pharmaceutical Companies

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).”

Correspondence concerning this project should be addressed to: David A. Gatti, Liberty University, Graduate School of Business, Lynchburg, Virginia 24515.

New Zealand is the only other developed nation in the world where prescription drugs are advertised directly to consumers. The American pharmaceutical industry used to abide by a term “ethical marketing,” meaning that drug companies could only market to physicians. On the other hand, there is a valid argument for allowing direct-to-consumer drug advertisements as the flow of information and transparency are beneficial. However, there obviously needs to be some checks and balances. This experiment began with a print advertisement in 1981 in Reader’s Digest and the first TV ad took place in 1983. At that time, the FDA had several rules in place requiring companies to offer a fair and balanced presentation. In sum, this was a responsible era of advertising.

Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs has attracted several controversies, especially from people opposed to it. Some of the major arguments that have been raised include the possibility of the advertising to be a blatant manipulation of the public, the huge potential benefits to pharmaceutical companies and significant damages to the health care system. However, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescriptions drugs should be carried out properly because the advantages of this measure outweigh its disadvantages. One of the major reasons for the advertisement of

Her main focus was on the television (T.V.) advertising of medicine that is done in this country. She finds it highly unethical that pharmaceutical companies advertise drugs that are needed by patients. She further explained that it is also the way which marketing is conducted, “showing cheery people with fabulous hair on sunny days” (F. McClure, personal communication, October 14, 2013). The general public is naive to the possible side effects of these drugs and/or do not grasp the severity of many of them. Most people are looking at the pleasing visuals in these commercials, therefore they do not notice the side effects of the drugs, because the notices are in small print or run through so quickly they are incomprehensible. The viewers want what they see and ask their physicians for these drugs by name. In turn, doctors order the drugs; the companies grow bigger and market more drugs. It is a perpetual cycle, McClure expounds, and one that she and many of her cohorts wish would stop.

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.

     Is a patient at liberty to diagnose his or her own affliction? If so, are they also qualified enough to know the right medication and take into consideration the drugs adverse effects? With the recent onset of direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs, this is becoming the case. In 1994, expenditures on direct to consumer advertisements were about twenty-five-million a year. By 1998 that figure changed to about 225 million (Sasich 2). Turn on the TV, there they are. Open your favorite magazine, there they are again. Listen to the radio, congratulations, you’ve found another ad for the latest prescription drug. Rush down to your local

In the January 18th 2016 issue of People Magazine, AstraZeneca ran an advertisement for Seroquel XR, an atypical antipsychotic. This advertisement was just one of seven prescription drug advertisements in the 94 page magazine, all urging readers to ask their doctors about a medication. These seven advertisements are a small sample of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisement that flood television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and websites in the United States. The debate about whether DTC advertisement for psychotropic medication provides the consumer with more information and power over their medical care and reduces stigma or whether it leads to physicians to prescribing medications before assessing other treatment options and adds to the

This paper takes the stand that direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of pharmaceutical drugs is unethical. This stand is based on the belief that many developed countries in the world have banned such kind of advertising because they believe that it is unethical. I believe that the advertising of pharmaceutical drugs is unethical because it gives consumers hope that a specific drug can cure their disease. However, this might not be the case as only a qualified medical practitioner can prescribe the right medication to treat a particular disease or condition. This is a major issue given that many consumers might prefer to be treated with an advertized pharmaceutical drug, yet it might not be the best drug for their specific ailment. It is believed

One of the biggest problems with direct to consumer advertising is the dangerous medicalizing of our citizens. Medicalization: To take a normal human condition and turn it into a medical condition that needs to be treated. At issue with opponents of DTCA is the belief that the advertisements gloss over the (sometimes-serious) side effects. These ads portray the message of happy and carefree people whose lives are better because of these drugs. The ubiquitous ads promote these drugs to the exclusion of any natural remedies or simple lifestyle changes

Using this Deontological approach we will look at the pharmaceutical advertising. As a free nation, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, there is a moral obligation for us to do what is right. From the corporate perspective, nearly all other businesses are allowed to advertise. The purpose of advertising from a corporate perspective is to teach individuals what their products offer the public so they can increase profit for the company. There are rules that they have to follow to ensure the information is accurate. There is nobody forcing a purchase of the drugs, it is mere information that is available to all public for their benefit. There is a choice that is made by the public. They will either choose to purchase the drugs that will help them, or will not. From the public perspective, they want to have access to the information that will help them lead a better life regardless of who they are. Under the veil of ignorance, we should all be able to know and understand every option that is available to us so that we can live happier and healthy lives. Pharmaceutical products offer people a better way to live their lives no matter who you are. There are drugs for arthritis that help people live better by reducing pain and increasing mobility; drugs for helping people get a better night of sleep; drugs for

There is total 24 limited number of research on reviewing the impact of over-the-counter drug advertising since 1970 until now. On the other side, total 160 research articles of Direct-to-consumer advertising prescription drugs is already published within the last 12 years duration.

The author of the article “Consumer Drug Advertising Should be Banned”, Kurt C. Stange, show his Ethos, he is a professor of culture and family medicine at Case Western Reserve University, making a good credibility for the reader, it gives a sense of trustworthiness by he been a professional in the field of culture health. His Logos are that now this days, culture is having a drastic shift by seeking pills for everything, for every symptom. Can be assume that he is referring of drug addiction, by depending on pills on daily basis. For Stange’s Pathos, he uses the example of Rosy’s advertisements in the quote “medication should be motivated by observations of patients and physicians, not stimulated

This document is authorized for use only by Albertina Dias at ISG Business School until September 2013. Copying