Pros And Cons Of Direct-To-Consumer Advertising

Is Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceutical Drugs Ethical?

In 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passed a ruling to allow direct marketing to consumers as long as the pharmaceutical companies included warnings about possible side effects and other dangers. This change allowed for print-based marketing such as magazines, but in 1997, the FDA lessened the requirement for detailed warnings. Furthermore, the FDA ruled that TV ads containing only the main dangers of the drug were permissible, and this resulted in an inundation of the direct-to-consumer advertising on television. “One study showed that for each dollar of direct-to-consumer advertising on TV by the pharmaceutical company during 1999-2000 resulted in a return of $4.20 for each dollar spent. By 2005, the pharmaceutical industry spent over one billion on TV ads” (DeGeorge 319). Based on these facts, the advertising is paying off for these large pharmaceutical companies.

There is a debate on whether direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs is moral. These drug companies believe they are providing consumer awareness for patients potentially suffering illnesses, while critics argue that patients demand particular drugs from their doctor while there might be

While pharmaceutical companies may use creative marketing to mislead consumers, in most cases the companies are not lying about their products to the general public. This deceptive marketing tactic falls in a gray area. Since there is some doubt, one should look at the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative to determine whether this action is moral. “The Kantian test of conformity to the moral law which an action must pass is a formal one. An action is morally right if it has a certain form; it is morally wrong if it does not have that form” (DeGeorge