Why Do Pharmaceutical Companies Use Direct To Consumer Advertisements

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).”

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

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.

     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

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.

However, some politicians argue that the current system of regulation is inadequate. Congressman Tom Allen of Maine initiated a bill to the House of Representatives on May 23, 2002 entitled the “Accuracy in Pharmaceutical Advertisements Act.” In it, he advocates that violators of the FDA’s regulations concerning DTC advertising of prescription drugs should be subject to civil penalties. Under current statues, violators receive a letter from the FDA, either a Notice of Violation or ‘untitled’ letter or a warning letter. While the ‘warning’ letters are reserved for more serious violations, both request corrective action. Then the pharmaceutical company is given a period of

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.

Ever since the legalization of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in 1985, drug companies have grown and greatly increased their spending, making this the most popular type of health communication to the general public. From 1996 to 2005, the total amount of spending on pharmaceutical advertisements increased by 3252 million dollars and the percentage of drug sales increased by 1.4 percent (New England Journal of Medicine). This positive increase in sales is why the United States allows for these advertisements to be aired, they bring in revenue and as people become more sick, they will continue to buy more drugs and increase the revenue. However, even with all this spending, after observing hours of television on three different channels, I found it surprising on the limited amounts of pharmaceutical advertisements that were presented. For the network CBS, there were three drug advertisements, for CNN there were four and for the network AMC, there were only two of the same commercial. This trend shows how different airing times affect different populations of people. I watched CNN at 11:30 in the morning, a more common

Advertisements have one primary purpose that is to persuade. Prescription medications Ads tell the consumers to get treatment and also imply that they have the need for it to solve their problems. Since prescription Ads have been introduced, the pharmaceutical

INTRODUCTION 1. Title: Drug Companies Advertisements 2. General Purpose: A. To give a persuasive speech 3. Specific Purpose A. To persuade the audience to opposed the advertisement of drugs by drug companies.

Some people believe pharmacy should be allowed to advertise prescription medical, they think that it give consumers valuable information, others disagrees, and believe that pharmacy shouldn’t be allowed to advertise prescription medical on TV because it compromise kinds of carry giving to patients. The pharmacy companies should not be allowed advertise prescription drugs on TV because prescription drugs should only be allowed to doctors and physicians, it’s up to their doctors to decide if the patients will be benefit from the drugs without pressure form the patients, they know everything and particular drugs consumers need, while a person who learned about the

Pharmaceutical companies use direct to consumer advertisement to present their drug as effective by means of promotional visuals, symbols and language that appeal to women and attract a large customer base. I want to know if women are the targeted for prescription drugs on television commercials, video commercials on the internet and magazines, also known as in direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertisement. If so, I would like to see the effects this has on not only women but the public’s perception of women and pharmaceutical drugs that treat diseases, specifically mental health diseases.

The topic brings up a lot of moral issues. One issue is Brand name drugs are better known by people because they are advertised more than generic drug. I find that American Medical Association wanting to ban commercials or advertisement for prescription medicines something interesting because it will definitely affect people opinion on what medicine they need, and want. I’m shocked that America is 1 in 2 countries that actually have prescription advertisement. You would think our leaders would look at other countries are doing and follow them, while making a good choices and

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.