Direct-to-consumer drug advertising (DTCDA) has created a lot of controversy in recent years because of the outbreak of social media. Drug-to consumer advertising is defined as, “an effort (usually via popular media) made by a pharmaceutical company to promote its prescription products directly to patients” (Ventola, 2011). DTCDA is illegal in most countries, including Canada, but New Zealand and the United States still permit it.
DTCDA is an important social issue because of the vast amount of resources available for companies to use to advertise their product. The internet, television, magazines, newspapers, radio, and other forms of media all have the potential to advertise a company’s drug. This allows for thousands to millions of people to see an advertisement and potentially want the product. With this accessibility, a vast amount of people may be inclined to seek a drug that they saw an advertisement about.
Two strong arguments that support DTCDA is that it informs, educates, and empowers patients, as well as encourages patient compliance. DTCDA can educate patients on health issues, allowing them to take charge of their health. Rather than relying on a health care provider to inform a patient of treatment options, DTCDA allows for patients to have multiple sources where they can seek information. Patient compliance is shown to increase when patients are exposed to DTCDA. This is because it reminds patients about medical conditions and prescriptions, but also reinforces physician recommendations (Ventola, 2011). If a doctor supports what was advertised on the television, a patient will be more complied to follow treatment recommendations since multiple sources are claiming the same thing.
Two strong arguments against DTCDA is that the company may provide misleading information and patients may try to self diagnose themselves with health issues inaccurately and more frequently. Pharmaceutical and media companies are motivated by profit, so the information they provide in advertisements can be persuasive and misleading. This may make patients believe that the advertised drug is going to be the “miracle drug” to their problems (Chow, 2011). If patients are continuously seeing advertisements of drugs that can treat health issues, they may begin to believe that they have complications when they really don’t. This can lead the patient to believe they have a health issue and need treatment for it.
I support the arguments against DTCDA for several reasons. Now a day, anyone can put information on the internet, so deciphering what is true and not true is very difficult. The information that a patient is reading could be completely incorrect, providing them with false knowledge. Pharmaceutical and media companies mainly care about the profit they make, so the more people that they can trick into wanting their drug the better because it means they will make more money. The companies may be misleading with the information they provide, making patients believe that this specific drug is going to fix their problems. Therefore, DTCDA cannot be trusted and should not be permitted.
After looking at some television commercials of DTCDA, I now realize how misleading they can be. The companies make it seem like the drug can give you super powers and cure all your problems. Rather then focusing on the health issue and who the drug is intended for, the advertisements seem to prioritize making the drug appealing and needed. In the end, the company mainly cares about how much profit they can make.
References
Chow, E. C. (2011). Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals on television: a charter challenge. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 9, 73-91. Retrieved March 26, 2017, from https://ojs.library.dal.ca/CJLT/article/viewFile/4839/4358.
Ventola, C. L. (2011). Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising. Pharmacy and Therapeutics,36(10), 669-684. Retrieved March 26, 2017, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/.
