The Ethics of Marketing Prescription Drugs - Essay Example

?The Ethics of Marketing Prescription Drugs In recent years, television in the U.S. has become increasingly involved in helping people diagnose theirown ailments by telling them which drugs they should be taking. These commercials usually must be 60 second spots because they need the first 30 seconds to ‘sell’ the drug and the next 30 seconds or more to quickly run through all the disclaimers and risks associated with taking that drug. The pharmaceutical companies argue that these commercials are necessary to make consumers aware of new treatments available that their doctors may not yet know of, but these types of commercials have an overall negative effect upon the viewer. However, UK Health Secretary Frank Dobson decided, in 1998, that advertising medications on TV was "going down the wrong road" (Drug Ads Ruled Out) and the UK has maintained this stance. Because they encourage people to feel sicker than they are, throw doubt on the ability of the medical industry, encourage the industry to focus on profiting on illness rather than altruistically working toward a healthier society, and give consumers the impression they are more knowledgeable than their doctors, there are significant ethical concerns when prescription drugs such as the antidepressant medication Paxil are directly marketed to the public. Psychological studies have continued to demonstrate that when people see a commercial for a prescription drug, they tend to start matching the way they feel with the symptoms listed in the ad. For example, an ad for Paxil aired in the US recently describes a number of symptoms that could be caused by a variety of factors including poor nutrition, a stressful lifestyle, lack of proper sleeping routines or other medical conditions that only proper testing could discern. Some of the symptoms listed include feeling worn down, having a lack of energy, feeling lonely, and not experiencing as much excitement in life as before. The answer to all these problems is suggested to reside in a simple pill the user must take just once a day. Once it is taken, the skies will brighten, colors will return, and the individual will have time to do the things she enjoys. Seeing these kinds of commercials not only convince the watcher that they are sick, but that they must get themselves medicated before they waste any more time in their suddenly felt misery. "The best contributions to such debates [regarding the extent of influence the media has over the public] suggest the complex, negotiated and often indirect nature of media influence, but of one thing there can be no doubt; the media do have an influence" Hesmondhalgh 3). By playing on the already weakened state of the viewer who is experiencing any of these symptoms, advertisements such as this are unethically misleading about the cause of their suffering as well as the instantaneous results they will experience once medicated. By encouraging people to talk to their doctor about taking this drug, the advertisers for Paxil give the viewer the impression that they are more informed about their illness and its potential treatments than their doctor. Rather than openly acknowledge the symptoms listed may be caused by a number of factors, this information is read through quickly, if at all, during the 30 second segment of disclaimers and identified risk factors associated with the drug. “The average person cannot adequately research all the scientific studies done to evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs. Patients, therefore, find themselves requesting prescription drugs based on advertisements with little knowledge of all the relevant medical information” (ProCon, 2010). At the same time, this advertisement wears away at the viewer’s trust in their medical professional, particularly when they see corresponding promotional material in the doctor’s office. “Patients seeing prescription drug ads can lose trust in doctors and the medical establishment when it seems that the medical community (including pharmaceutical companies) is more interested in taking their money than improving their health” (ProCon, 2010). Thus, they are mistrustful when the doctor recommends a different medication even when the doctor is acting in strict compliance with his Hippocratic Oath to serve the needs of the patient. Although it is argued that these commercials help bring more information to the consumer, in reality they are only confusing the issue and contributing greatly to America's growing problem of an overmedicated and increasingly ill society in the kind of cultural/economic process described by DuGay and Pryke (2002). In order to compete with other products being marketed on television, prescription drug advertisements like this one need to be entertaining and memorable. “The media are shaped by varying values and interests, including the need to capture market share. Thus, media producers and writers seek content that elicits interest and excitement, rather than trying to balance perspectives and information” (Mechanic, 2005). The primary focus of drug ads is to develop consumer familiarity with their product. They have no vested interest in fairly assessing whether their drug works better than other drugs on the market. “Advertisers, whether of products or ideas, understand that the consumer selection process is imperfect and that in any case, theme recognition is itself an important inducer to behavior and choice under uncertainty” (Mechanic, 2005). The need to generate the necessary revenue to fund their advertising campaign further encourages the maker of Paxil to concentrate more on their profit margin than appropriately disseminating their information to the people who can put it to best use – the healthcare providers and medical community. Although there are plenty of arguments in the US in favor of allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise to the general public through mainstream media, this practice has proven to be ultimately quite harmful. To compete, pharmaceutical companies must adopt many of the questionable practices adopted by the mainstream advertisers. When one is discussing potentially dangerous or life-changing medication decisions and individual health, these questionable practices cross the line into unethical. This is because the drug companies know they are actively selling their product to people who may not need them based on generalized symptom descriptions and an attractive image. Preventing prescription drug ads to the general public was the right decision for the UK and provides an example of how some control over the media provides the necessary balance between culture and economy. Works Cited "Drug ads ruled out." (6 August 1998). BBC News. Web. April 10, 2011. Du Gay, P. & Pryke, M. (eds). (2002). Cultural Economy. London: Sage. Hesmondhalgh, David. (2002). The Cultural Industries. London: Sage. Mechanic, David. (2005). “The Media, Public Perceptions & Health and Health Policy.” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 5. ProCon.org. (2010). “Prescription Drug Ads.” Santa Monica, CA, 2010. Web. May 10, 2011. Read More