Direct to Consumer Paper

Direct to Consumer Drug Advertising

Direct to consumer drug advertising DTCDA is a topic that is greatly debated. DTCDA is refers to pharmaceutical companies marketing products directly to consumer patients via TV, internet, radio and print ads. Prior to 1997, pharmaceutical companies advertised their products only to medical professional. This has since changed, as the Food and Drug Administration FDA allowed TV, radio and internet marketing. U.S and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allows this method of pharmaceutical advertising. The question is, is direct to consumer drug advertising moral or immoral? There are strong differences from both sides that agree and disagree with this practice. This paper will consider the pros and cons of DTCDA and then consider Rawl’s rights and justice approach to determine if it is ethical.

Pharmaceutical advertising has existed for many years but was mainly directed to health care providers. The methods used where direct sales from pharmaceutical representatives and print advertising in medical magazines. According to www.procon.org; in 1997 the FDA made revised provisions that “opened the door to broadcast DTC prescription drug ads”. This has since then become a controversial issues that questions the ethics that surrounds it.

According to the FDA, pharmaceutical companies are required to provide the risks involved in taking prescription drugs being advertised. They are also required to provide sources that can assist with information regarding the prescribed drug. Such as directing consumers to contact their doctor, a toll free number and website as resource for consumer information.

Pro supporter of DTCDA claim that directly marketing prescription drugs to patients empowers patients to take an active role of their health. DTCDA is also said to open the line of communication with their healthcare provider as they are more educated prepared to ask questions about treatments available. It is also...