Position:Home>Philosophy> Should pharmaceutical companies advertise on TV and in magazines?
Question: Should pharmaceutical companies advertise on TV and in magazines!?
My point is that some patients may decide after seeing an ad that a certain medication is *the* drug for them, when in fact another drug may work better; or even worse, that particular drug may be harmful to them!. Rather than listening to their doctors, a percentage of these people will continue "doctor shopping" until they find someone to give them the medication they want!. While I know it isn't the industry's responsibility to protect people from themselves, it still seems somewhat careless--even with all the disclaimers--to put the notion in someone's mind that "this medication is the magic bullet that will solve your problem!." Any opinions!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
In a study published in the April 27, 2005 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found that when patients request prescription drugs from their doctor, doctors are more likely to prescribe them than when no request is made!. This study underscored the fact that patients have the power to influence their own healthcare!.
While DTC ads may be useful to some consumers, like any other advertisement it is important to place the information in its proper context!. Even though the content of the ad is governed by FDA guidelines and may be reasonably accurate, it is not necessarily unbiased!. The goal of DTC ads is to increase drug sales, and to do that, companies place their drugs in the most positive light possible!.
If you see a drug in an ad that you think you might benefit from, or if you think you may you have the condition the drug is used to treat, look for other sources of reliable, unbiased information!. Then, have a chat with your doctor, who is in the best position to apply this information to your particular medical circumstances!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
No, they shouldn't!. My logic:
If the drugs are available to doctors only, they should be advertised to doctors only!. Otherwise it is an attempt to create a demand, which abuses the lay public who lack the medical knowledge to make a good judgment of the information presented, and who may be inspired (the purpose of the ad is to inspire them) to complaints they never would have thought of, simply by the slick image presentation of the remedy!.
Sell them OTC, advertise all you want -- caveat emptor!. But when you have to go to a doctor to get supposed authoritative prescription, caveat emptor is presumed not to be necessary!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
The drug companies now control medicine!. According to my Doctor, every time a prescription is filled using the new computerized prescription forms, the information goes back to the drug company!. The various drug companies will reprimand a Doctor for not prescribing their drugs!. Your Doctor can no longer prescribe what medicine he feels is best for you!. He must prescribe which one the drug company wants!. When the drug companies now advertise on TV, the government says that they can include the cost of advertising the drug into the cost of your prescription!. That's why any drug is now most expensive if purchased in the U!.S!. It's now a country by the corporation, for the corporation!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
One of those moral gray areas!.!.!.
If the drug companies should not advertise by reason of possible mal-prescription, then they should not even be making the drug for the same reason!.
And what if someone saved gave birth to a monster like Adolf Hitler!? Wouldn't we be better off without saving that one person for the sake of millions!?
And if saving one life is just as important, then shouldn't we tolerate the possibility of mal-prescription and allow them to advertise and therefore risk thousands just so one person could be saved!?
Like I said, one of those moral gray areas!.!.!.
The sensible way is therefore to use our best judgments and trust that the professionals do try to do their job right!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Who makes business on other people's shouldern, should be forbidden to advertise his/her business!. But so is Economy, based on business!. And we should (unfortunately) remember that Economy produces money which support the Social Welfare, too!. So: it is a sort of (more) complex matter/problem!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
No!.
However, I think if pharmaceutical companies are allowed to advertise as they do, then so too should alcohol and tobacco products be allowed to advertise!. Equal time for equal dangers!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
No!.
Govt!. is sleeping after heavy dose of !.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
I don't have a problem with the pharmaceutical industry advertising on television or magazines!. People who are going to doctor shop are a small minority of the population and they're going to do it whether or not they see an ad or not!.
For instance, if Jane decides that she has insomnia, she's going to go to the doctor with the expectation that they are going to give her a pill and her insomnia will go away!. If the doctor doesn't feel she meets the diagnostic criteria for insomnia and suggests cutting down on her caffeine intake, exercising, etc, that doesn't meet the need she was looking to fill!. She's probably going to fixate on finding that doctor that will give her that pill!.
I think it's a personality issue and not one of advertising!. Don't get me wrong, the advertising is pretty powerful - I just think you're always going to have a certain segment of the population that is going to behave a certain way to get what they want or have a certain mindset and not be swayed until life fits their preconceived notion!.Www@QuestionHome@Com