Editorial: DTC Advertising!
Direct-to-consumer advertising from the pharmaceutical industry presents a number of problems to the profession and to society.
First, the ads are not always truthful; they tend to portray the drug-using individuals in a very positive light, do not portray individuals experiencing side effects (and even death), and the ads do not provide complete information. Looking at the previous ads for drugs that have been withdrawn from the market due to serious side effects and death, one must ask, "Why is the activity allowed to continue?" Are patients in a position to make a decision regarding their own therapy? (Obviously they are not trained to do this.) Do physicians yield to the requests of patients when they ask for a specific drug? (Yes, in many cases they do.) Are the ads intended to enhance healthcare? (No, they are intended to sell drugs.)
Second, direct-to-consumer advertising has brought many "embarrassing situations" into our living rooms during family time together while watching television. It appears the pharmaceutical industry is more interested in making a dollar than supporting family values. Why is it that erectile dysfunction ads need to be blasted into homes several times every single night? Why is it that female products need to be advertised when children are watching television? Where is the social value of this type of advertising? Obviously, it is only intended to sell drugs at any cost to social values.
Do you see drugs advertised on television that will treat cancer�epilepsy�wounds? No, you see drugs advertised where the patient will have an interest in requesting the drug from their physician. Surely, there must be a better way, and the millions spent on marketing could be used to decrease the high cost of drugs. I have heard statements that more money is spent on marketing than is spent on research on new drugs.
Maybe it's time we consider doing something about direct-to-consumer advertising of some drug products. We may consider having the potential to block offensive advertisements on television! If offensive portions (language, sex, violence, etc.) of programming can be blocked, why not have the opportunity of "blocking offensive advertisements?" Or maybe we should have the ability to "block ALL advertisements"!
True, as some have suggested, we could turn off the television during commercial breaks, but that suggestion is impractical as these offensive advertisements air without warning.
It is interesting that as part of an ongoing investigation, representatives Dingell and Stupak have requested improved accuracy and stronger guidelines for DTC advertisements. Maybe we should put in our two cents worth and request some additional changes be made.
Loyd V. Allen, Jr., PhD, RPh
|