ethics in advertising!!
... decade now but to date there have been no claims that anyone has been hurt by it. In television ads the companies are prepared to pay the cost that it takes to tell the consumer to talk to their doctor if they have any of the symptoms listed and they must also give a brief run down on some of the possible side effects. Most drug manufacturers tend to argue that raising awareness of certain diseases helps to achieve an overall improvement in public health. “Lilly cites a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting that only one depressed person in ten receives adequate treatment, and that a third of people with a serious depressive disorder seek no therapy at all. Prozac commercials let these people know that a (fairly) effective treatment exists, and also reduce the stigma attached to seeking help for mental troubles”.(Vol.344) Since the European government pays for most prescription drugs they oppose the direct to consumer advertising for the fear it will cause an increase in drug pricing. Of course the companies that market whiskey and cigarettes are free to go on but the advertising for a heart pill cannot. So, do doctors want direct to consumer ads bring them more patients? That is the topic in the November 1999 publication of The Medical Post. The story began of a patient who saw an advertisement on television about a drug for obesity. The ad went as far as listing the dangerous side effects of the drug such as heart disease or stroke but all the consumer could think about was getting off a few extra pounds. As a result of this ad, the doctor had to spend an extra ten minutes with the patient to tell her why it was unsafe for her to take the drug. The same conversation has been shared with many more patients causing delays in the waiting room and having an unhappy patient. This can lead to the patient seeking another doctor in hope of getting a prescription for the drug. The Post stated that: “Still illegal in Canada, DTCA (Direct-To-Consumer Advertising) prescription drug advertising may be a reality in the future”.(Vol.35) Health Canada conducted a study that had doctors, pharmacists, and others to look at the impact of DTCA. Consumers in Canada are exposed to the use of advertising in the U.S. due to the closeness of the countries. “Champions of DTCA say that if it is regulated and controlled, that DTCA could improve the doctor-patient relationship and lead to better drug use”.(Vol.35) But on the opposition side they argue that ads are there to increase demand and that DTCA may not be the right way to educate people. The DTCA also has allies, which are the industry itself, advertisers and patient advocacy groups. Another side to the advertising of pharmaceutical drugs is how it’s done to the doctors and health care professionals. The PAAB (Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board) have the companies submit their ads to them for approval before they market them. There is a substantial difference in what the doctors see versus what the consumers sees. They get to see the proofs of studies done on the drugs. But overall the ultimate decision is still up to the Food and Drugs Act. A consultant group to see if it is an appropriate use to consumers is currently assessing the DTCA. Another sensitive issue in the marketing of drugs is the line between educating the physicians and buying them off with gifts to promote the company’s drugs. Most doctors find themselves in a difficult ethical position. However, if the companies are caught unduly entertaining doctors they...