Prescription Drugs And The United States And New Zealand

If you have ever watched TV in America you are aware of “direct-to consumer" (DTC) advertising for prescription drugs. These are ads provided by drug companies in the intent to educate the general public on the benefits of their product. They often feature celebrities or catchy cartoons with very healthy satisfied patients. This type of advertising of prescription drugs is unique to the United States. It was one of only two countries that allows DTC advertising. New Zealand is the only other developed nation that does. If the intent is to educate the prospective consumers about their product then why do only two countries utilize the technique (“For Consumers”)?

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.

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.

In regards to the price of prescription drugs, supporters note that the advertising promotes competition among the drug companies, thus driving the drug prices down. Assuming that this is true, which is disputable in itself, “some opponents also suggest that DTCPA increases health care costs because visits to the physician prompted by a drug ad can be a waste of time and money”.(nih.gov) So if the prices are driven down then that would be of benefit to some and if they are, in fact, increased that would be of impact to all consumers. This ethical analysis does not require an answer as to which point of view is true.

often give in to the pressure to satisfy them, even though it is not a well-informed choice.

(Herzberg 106.3: 408-10). This has become the norm. People take prescription drugs; lifestyle change is far more difficult than popping a pill. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription medication undermines a physicians authority. They went to medical school and passed rigorous testing to become a physician, prescription drug advertising is an insult to physicians. A physician takes an oath, “To do no harm”. They are compromised with the current advertising conundrum, knowing that if a patient does not get the prescription they want from them, they will simply seek another doctor. Drug seekers exist, and without prescription drug advertising they would still exist. Yet the United States is creating new drug seekers by allowing prescription

There is a significant correlation between an increase in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertisements and an increase in prescriptions. The critics who are opposed to direct-to-pharmaceutical advertisements suggest that more advertising leads to more requests and more prescriptions of certain medications. They also claim that the publications of such advertisements may eventually blur the distinction between patient and consumer if we are not careful. Physicians have reported that most patients who are knowledgeable on a DTC advertised pharmaceutical

Without the rather excessive amount of DTC ads placed in our lives, millions of people may have never even thought to go to the doctor’s office for an exam, may have forgotten about taking medicine in the first place. The revenue being made from these ads further the research and development of medications, making the availability to consumers higher. On the other hand, there are still concerns regarding DTC advertising, bringing up points of potential overdose and misleading advertising. Clearly, prescription drug ads are not only important but perhaps even vital in the fight to cure the diseases that affect us the most, and to furthering a better

Dr. Nestle and Dr. Ludwig bring up the issue of misleading labels on the front of many packages. Most claims are not proven scientifically but are still being placed on the front packaging of many products. “Front-of-Package Food Labels Public Health of Propaganda,” brings up how the the legislation passed by Congress throughout the 19th century has impacted the FDA’s ability to regulate misleading claims on food labels.

New Zealand and the U.S are the only two countries in the world where Direct to Consumer (DTC) of prescription is legal. DTC of drugs means the commercials listing of potential problems and then suggesting a pill as a solution. These commercials often advertise drugs that are not FDA approved, as they are not required to. Drug manufacturing companies, not the doctors, put out these advertisements in media. These DTC ads used to have to go through doctors to get sold, but now they use DTCA to sell their products, therefore are not required to inform the consumer about all risks.

"Markets change, tastes change, so the companies and the individuals who choose to compete in those markets must change."( Wang, n.d. as cited by Morrison, p. 113). In modern medicine, disease treatment is more importance than disease prevention, as doctors focus more on treatment of symptoms of rather than determining its root cause. This is mirrored in the media by the large numbers of direct-consumer advertisements aimed at persuading patients themself to ask their doctors about various drug. Direct consumer marketing in the health-care industry is allowed in the USA.

These commercials appeal to both the scare tactic and to the realization that there is more to life than unhealthy lifestyles. Such a mechanism for informing people about diseases is an effort to stop the problem before it starts.

In this technology based era ridden with deregulation, advertising has become an increasingly ‘hot-topic.’ Advertising helps consumers with buying decisions, boosts economic growth, and creates numerous job opportunities. However, there is one ingredient within advertisements which is often overthrown for status and economic gain; ethics. For example, in 2009, The FDA mentions Cheerios is branded in a way which makes its cereal “sound like a drug to prevent, mitigate, and treat high cholesterol and heart disease.” (“FDA Warns Cheerios on Health Claims.” WebMD, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2016) According to the FDA, Cheerios’ advertising inappropriately highlights the ‘fantastical’ benefits of its cereal. Due to this, Cheerios was forced to spend millions re-designing and re-branding its products. The absence of ethics is most rampant regarding tobacco advertisements. They offer seductive cues, subjective product descriptions, and minimal information on their products. Thus, nearly 443,000 people die prematurely each year from smoking. Tobacco products should not be advertised upon, as these advertisements explore a plethora unethical values.

In Canada, DTCA is regulated by Health Canada. According to Canada’s Food and Drugs Act, an advertisement cannot “make any representation other than with respect to the brand name, proper name, common name, price and quantity of the drug” (Bélisle-Pipon 259). Advertising Standards Canada regulates DTCI by ensuring that “no element can directly or indirectly promote the sale of a drug” (Bélisle-Pipon 260). Consumer health materials that follow Health Canada’s Guidelines are automatically classified as DTCI and if the material does not comply, they are classified as DTCA’s. Canada’s DTCI campaigns raise similar ethical concerns as those associated with the United States’ DTCA. Canadian DTCI regulations require the suppression of drug sponsorship (Bélisle-Pipon 260). This hides the commercial marketing aspect of DTCI and thus the motivations behind the message. Transparency of a sponsor’s

These recommendations are based on: (1) our newly completed two-year study of previous mass media campaigns and innovative practices in advertising, marketing, and public relations; and (2) our experience in implementing the Harvard Alcohol Project, a research-based media campaign conducted in collaboration with the nation’s broadcast, advertising, and entertainment industries. What Can Mass Media Campaigns Accomplish In Health Promotion? When the broadcast media emerged as a major force, many public health advocates assumed that the presentation of factual information through public communication campaigns would automatically change attitudes and lead to more healthful behavior. Subsequently, when several such campaigns produced disappointing results, this boundless optimism was replaced by the highly pessimistic view that mass media campaigns to change behavior are doomed to failure. Investigators recognized that a campaign could reinforce existing behavior, but this was viewed as the most that could be achieved. Pessimists noted that the apparent success of commercial advertising had raised unrealistic expectations about the potential of mass media to change behavior. In fact, there are basic differences in the goals of commercial advertising and public health campaigns. Commercial advertising seldom is designed to bring about new attitudes or patterns of behavior; rather, it intends to