Question

Should Prescription Drugs be Allowed to be Advertised Directly to Consumers?

Yes

No

The question of whether DTCA should be legal has been a heated debate in many countries. DTCA can be a great tool for informing consumers and improving lives, and such ads should remain legal in the United States for several reasons. One reason DTCA should be allowed is that it can inform consumers about diseases they may have and possible treatments for those diseases. Being that the ads in question are prescription drug ads, DTCA also encourages consumers to seek help from their doctors before using the drug. DTCA can educate consumers about illnesses they may or may not have realized they were suffering from and so encourage them to seek treatment and improve their lives. Another benefit of DTCA is that, like any other form of advertisement, it gets the word out about a product (in this case, prescription drugs) which can lead to more sales for the pharmaceutical companies that produce them. More sales leads to more revenue, which can be used to research new and better life-improving medications. In effect, the advertising of today can save lives tomorrow. Perhaps one of the most straightforward reasons why DTCA should remain legal is that it should be allowed as protected free speech. Ford and Chrysler can advertise their new cars; why can’t pharmaceutical companies advertise their new legal, FDA-approved, life-improving drugs? The First Amendment should protect DTCA as it does almost all other forms of advertisement.

The advertisement of prescription drugs represents a potential threat to consumers everywhere. In fact, direct-to-consumer drug advertisement (DTCA) has been deemed so unsafe that every country besides the United States and New Zealand has banned it outright. There are many reasons why DTCA should be banned in the United States as well. First, DTCA ads can misinform consumers and can lead to consumers misdiagnosing themselves. A 2013 study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that 55 percent of claims made in DTCA were “potentially misleading,” while 2 percent were “false.” DTCA can mislead consumers to request drugs and seek treatment for diseases that the ads lead them to believe they have, which in turn can mean adverse medical results from taking unnecessary medications. Second, drugs are often advertised through DTCA before theirPage 1046long-term health effects are fully known. Contrary to the belief of many consumers, drugs can be advertised and sold before long-term safety trials have been completed. The drug Vioxx was marketed, requested by patients, and prescribed before being taken off the market after being linked to over 4,500 deaths related to strokes and heart attacks induced by the drug. Consumers aren’t the only people being negatively affected by DTCA. A large portion of medical doctors have reported having patients request advertised drugs that were inappropriate for their treatment, and many of these doctors have felt pressured to prescribe the inappropriate drugs. And even if a doctor refuses to prescribe the drug, a 2013 study found that 50 percent of patients were “disappointed” in their doctors for refusing to prescribe an advertised drug and 25 percent of patients surveyed would try to convince the doctor to give them the drug or acquire the drug somewhere else. Not even wary doctors can prevent consumers from falsely medicating themselves as a result of DTCA.

Review the Point/Counterpoint at the end of Chapter 45. Do you agree with the Yes or No groups? Why?

Answer 1

I agree with the NO groups.

From the perspective of "Yes" group the major benefeciaries are pharmaceutical companies whose sales number go up as more and more customer enquire about their product. However, the increase cost comes at a cost of following:

• Fear in customers that they have certain disease and need the medicine, getting it prescribed wrongly, using it and leading to adverse medical reactions
• Pressure on doctors by patients to prescribe advertised drug immaterial of benefit or efficacy, if not prescribed patients lose faith in doctors or unsatisfied with service
• Actual deaths due to use of drugs that are not required

Though consumers get educated with advertisements, the proportion of consumers that use this information wisely and to their benefit is less. The advertisements in the past have caused actual deaths (example of Vioxx). It is wrong to compare a pharmaceutical product with cars as cars are not responsible directly for medical conditions.

The drugs are consumed on a day-to-day basis , hence I agree with the group not in favor of advertisements.