Direct-Consumer Drug Advertising Direct-To-Consumer Drug Advertising Direct-To-Consumer

Direct-Consumer Drug Advertising

Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising

Direct-to-consumer drug advertising of pharmaceutical drugs is a hot-button issue. Is it ethical, or does it lead to self-diagnosis and take advantage of people who have hope for a cure? Currently, New Zealand and the United States are the only two countries that allow this kind of direct-to-consumer advertising to take place, which calls into question why other countries do not allow the same, if the practice is ethical. From a deontological point-of-view, using Kant's categorical imperative, this paper will address whether the direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs is ethical or unethical. According to the deontological approach, one's duty is to do what is morally right and avoid what is morally wrong, regardless of what the consequences of those actions may be (Beauchamp, 1991; Waller, 2005). Because that is the case, there are moral questions raised that have to be considered with something as potentially life-altering as a medication.

According to Immanuel Kant (1964), the motives of the person who carries out the actions are what make the actions right or wrong, not the outcome of those actions. With that argument in mind, the only good thing in life is good will. People who have that and act from it are people who are intrinsically good, meaning that they are good without any kind of qualification (Beauchamp, 1991; Kamm, 1996). If they need a motive to be good, they are not intrinsically good, because they must be "bribed" in order to get them to "do the right thing." Unless that right thing is done with no ulterior motive or desire in mind, it - technically - cannot be "right" at all. What people do is not as important as the reasons behind why they do it, and that is behind the entire argument that Kant (1964) presents. It is, ultimately, at the heart of many deontological issues (Kamm, 2007; Salzmann, 1995).

Taking that argument to the issue of direct-to-consumer drug advertising, it can be seen that the reasons behind the advertising have to be determined. Are these pharmaceuticals being advertised because the company that makes and/or sells them wants people to get better and feel well, or are they being advertised in order to sell more of them and make a larger profit. It is not entirely possible to know which one of these reasons is behind the advertising of these products, but it is relatively easy to speculate. Originally, these medications could only be advertised to doctors. There was no direct-to-consumer advertising of medications or other kinds of pharmaceuticals that needed a prescription for use. In most countries, with the exception of the U.S. And New Zealand, this is still the case. In the UK and Europe, for example, one will not see advertisements for pharmaceuticals on television, because it is against the law to advertise them to consumers directly.

How many people are helped by these advertisements, versus how many people are harmed, is something that is, again, difficult to prove. Some studies have indicated that the rates of illnesses such as anxiety and depression have been rising dramatically in the U.S. In recent years. The only way this can really be measured, of course, is by the number of people who are taking anti-anxiety and/or antidepressant medications. If more people are taking them, are they taking them because these illness rates are really rising, or because so many advertisements have convinced them that they are sick and need a medication to make them feel better about themselves and the world around them. It is no secret that many people live very stressed-out, busy lives today. That could certainly lead to depression and anxiety. Still, it appears as though the rates of these kinds of illnesses began to rise when the marketing of medications for them became direct-to-consumer in nature. One could argue that is just coincidence, but not everyone will believe that to be the case.

Another reason that it is difficult to believe the direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals is ethical is due to how much money the pharmaceutical companies spend each year to ensure that their advertisements appear on television, in magazines, and just about everywhere else. This makes the drug they are advertising a common, household name, and makes it seem much more acceptable than it would otherwise be. People go to their doctors and pressure those doctors to give them a particular kind of drug for the symptoms they are having. Additionally, the medication advertised may be more expensive, and may not work as well as some of the less-expensive, older drugs on the market. Because the newer drugs have not been used for as long, the potential for serious and unknown side effects is also there - and there have been many lawsuits recently about specific medications that have caused birth defects and other kinds of problems.

Does the end justify the means? That is what many proponents of medication advertisements are asking themselves and others. If lives are saved and improved in great numbers from these medications, is it not acceptable that a few lives might be harmed or even lost? Proponents would say that it is completely acceptable, and that permissible harm means that they are doing something for the greater good and that allows for some sacrifices that have to be made (Kamm, 2007). However, Kant (1964) would disagree with that, on the basis that even one life is too many to risk or destroy from a medication that is dangerous and that should only be prescribed by a competent doctor who truly feels that medication is the best option for the patient. When pharmaceutical advertising is provided only to doctors and not to patients, there is less risk of these patients being interested in taking these medications because they say them on TV or in a magazine. They will, instead, take what their doctor recommends, because they do not know about other options.

Could this lack of other options lead to patients who are not as well-informed? Yes, there is the risk of that. However, patients should also trust their doctors to help them and provide them with the best care. Patients who are not receiving good care may want to change doctors, but that does not mean they need to be bombarded with pharmaceutical advertisements every time they pick up a magazine or turn on the TV. Books like the Physician's Desk Reference are available to anyone, and the Internet provides a wealth of information about medications to people who are savvy about what sites they use. Because of that, there are plenty of ways to get information about a medication that is given to you by your doctor, or a medication that might help with your symptoms or an illness you have. The Advertising of medications in a direct-to-consumer capacity is unnecessary, and may even be harmful. It is certainly not ethical, and is only about the amount of money the pharmaceutical companies can bring in from selling more medications to people.