What are some of the positive and/or negative consequences of the use of DTC marketing by pharmaceutical companies? Who is impacted by these consequences? The use of DTC marketing by pharmaceutical companies has both positive and negative consequences for the parties concerned in this issues. Positive consequences: • It is an advantage for patients because, before advertising by pharmaceutical companies, patients used to follow blindly what their doctors asked them to take as medication without really understanding it or knowing all the options available. Now, they are more informed about medications.
The Big Pharma controversy encompasses these secrets, which revolve around the pharmaceutical companies, government, consumers. This controversy exists between supporters of the marketing tactics used by pharmaceutical companies and the critics of these tactics. These secrets held by drug companies inevitably raise the question: Is it ethical for medical professionals to profit at the expense of the patients? A balance between the pros and cons of marketing tactics used by the pharmaceutical industry must be achieved if the system is to benefit all. To do this, it is important to consider the ethical issues pertaining to these tactics.
Proponents counter that DTC ads help eliminate stigmas associated with certain medical conditions, give patients an active role in their health care management, and encourages the doctor/patient relationship. There have been calls for bans on DTC pharmaceutical advertising, but the practice is protected under a business’s right to free speech. Regulation changes, particularly requiring the FDA to pre-approve marketing campaigns before they are released to the public, may be one way to appease opponents, while protecting the rights of pharmaceutical manufacturers to advertise to the average American consumer. The FDA was given the authority to approve pharmaceutical products for marketing in the U.S. as a result of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, passed in 1938 (FDA par 2). In 1960’s, the agency issued final regulations for prescription drug advertising, which stipulated that these ads must not be false or misleading, present a “fair balance” of information describing both the risks and benefits of a drug, include facts that are “material” to the product’s advertised uses, and include a “brief summary” that mentions every risk described in the product’s ... ... middle of paper ... ...in the Twentieth Century”.
Annotated Bibliography: “Effective Methods of Communication amongst the Pharmaceutical Industry, the Public and All Those in Between” D'Arcy, E., & Moynihan, R. (2009). Can the relationship between doctors and drug companies ever be a healthy one?. International Journal Of Risk & Safety In Medicine, 21(4), 185-191. doi:10.3233/JRS-2009-0481 Is it ethical for a doctor to have a strong affiliation with a drug retailer? This question has raised several concerns. The relationship amongst doctors and drug corporations is the focus of extreme analysis.
Yes, I had those days when I looked in the mirror and wondered who was looking at me. Irritability, hateful attitude, you name it I experienced it so I thank Lilly for their advertisement. Even though the FDA does what they can to regulate drugs and their contents, I don’t know if we can blame them for the advertising that takes place with these companies. Maybe the U.S. needs to head up their own DTCA committee to help protect consumers from diagnosing themselves and not leaving it up to the doctors to do their jobs. Bibliography The Medical Post, September 15, 1998 issue.
Also people see the ads as a way to give people possible diseases they might have, therefore believe they need the medication, but that should be up to a medical professional to diagnose you and treat you. For example, “Procrit is a drug used to counteract anemia and can be used to help chemotherapy patients with fatigue” (Ventola). Prior to the ad campaign the drug was rarely prescribed because chemotherapy patients were not reporting fatigue caused by the chemotherapy to their doctors. Yet after seeing the ad patients started to report fatigue (Ventola). Prescription drug ads make people paranoid about their health and provide them with a solution they do not
Marketing Techniques of Pharmaceutical Companies The marketing practices followed pharmaceutical companies attempt to sway consumers as well as healthcare providers to use their products. From misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, to gift giving, the industry has often been accused of pushing the envelope. Marketing representatives from pharmaceutical companies, or "Drug reps" as they have become known in the industry, solicit medical providers in many ways to entice them into using their products. With changing guidelines established by the FDA, inappropriate marketing practices can become costly to a pharmaceutical company, as well as to a provider. In a review of several of the different strategies used by these companies, I will analysis the techniques most frequently used, and how they influence consumers and providers.
The film focuses on exposing the problem of the lack of governmental regulations to protect patients against the pharmaceutical companies in the United States, especially the hemophilic community. Patients with hemophilia had access to medication that would control their disease, however, that treatment was contaminated and would eventually cost them their lives. The film has one goal and that is to expose one of the worse outbreaks of diseases in the United States. It achieves its goal by putting emphasis on the fact that many lives could have been saved if someone had listened and stopped the pharmaceutical companies who were looking to make a profit out of their newly created “miracle”
In Melody Peterson’s “Our Daily Meds” , the history of marketing and advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is explored. The first chapter of the book, entitled “Creating disease”, focuses on how major pharmaceutical companies successfully create new ailments that members of the public believe exist. According to Peterson, the success that these drug manufacturers have experienced can be attributed to the malleability of disease, the use of influencial people to promote new drugs, the marketing behind pills, and the use of media outlets. “There is no real definition for disease. ” This is a claim that Melody Petersen makes in her book.
For biotech companies, expanded access means letting products out of tightly controlled environments, potentially subjecting the product to incorrect use and unknown adverse effects, which would still need to be reported to FDA. Such incidents could raise questions for regulators, thereby harming the chance of the drug getting to market. Further, some biotech companies are concerned that expanded access programs could remove the incentive for patients to enroll in clinical trials meant to provide evidence for their drug's safety and efficacy, thereby delaying its approval and ... ... middle of paper ... ... so they can benefit the largest amount of people. Works Cited Chimerix, Inc. (2014). About Chimerix, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.chimerix.com/ Cohen, E. (2014, March 11).