PHIL 3345. Supporting the philosophical study of bioethics, bio-medical ethics, biotechnology, and the future of life, at Middle Tennessee State University and beyond... "Keep your health, your splendid health. It is better than all the truths under the firmament." William James
Pages
▼
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Drug Marketing
DQ: Should any changes be made to the way pharmaceutical companies can market their products? Should individuals be able to choose which medicine they want to take by an ad on TV or should doctors choose the best medicine base on education and medical experience? Can you see any ethical issues with the current restrictions and freedoms of pharmaceutical companies in their current advertising methods?
Caveat emptor ("buyer beware") works better in some markets than others. It's hard to beware, when dealing with unfamiliar drugs. But what would be the constitutionally-compatible rationale for restricting ads? Same as with tobacco? One obvious difference: the correlation of smoking and cancer was well established, new drugs are still unestablished and without an extensive public track record.
I believe patients should talk to their doctor first about any medications that look appealing through an add on tv. Also, it is the doctor's duty to provide them with the information the patient has requested, but inform the patient of the option they would recommend so the patient could make an informed decision about the drugs because ultimately it is the patients right to choose what they decide to either refuse or accept the medication.
Throughout my life I've taken a firm stance against pharmaceutical assistance and Bog Pharma Industries. I believe part of the problem, specifically in America is that we rely too much on pharmaceutical dependency. I understand the efficiency of medicine but I feel like too often the side effects are overlooked. Also, as the body builds a tolerance the solution is normally an increased dosage or use of the medication. Prozac is one that comes to mind as an antidepressant but one of its side effects is an increased likelihood of suicide or suicidal thoughts. I just believe people should be wary of the promises made by pharmaceuticals. I don't necessarily have an alternative solution but I'm naturally opposed to them.
The way pharmaceutical companies brand a product ultimately predetermine how the product will be perceived by the public. Due to this, changes should be made to the way pharmaceutical companies can market their products because they are often times misleading. Side effects are played down especially when it comes to narcotics and antidepressants that need to instead be fully understood by all those taking them. Those medications are given out and sought after frequently and no one truly understands the weight over those drugs because of their high usage. Due to the misleading advertisements, people shouldn't be able to get any medication they want just because they see it on a commercial and think it fits into what they need, doctors go to school for a reason and should therefore be trusted when it comes to what they recommend. That being said they should also lay out all side effects that come along with the drug so that the patient can make a fully informed decision on what they're putting in their bodies.
DQ: What are some of the misleading facts that pharmaceutical companies present? Why do you think it would harm the companies to be more forthcoming on information?
Caveat emptor ("buyer beware") works better in some markets than others. It's hard to beware, when dealing with unfamiliar drugs. But what would be the constitutionally-compatible rationale for restricting ads? Same as with tobacco? One obvious difference: the correlation of smoking and cancer was well established, new drugs are still unestablished and without an extensive public track record.
ReplyDeleteI believe patients should talk to their doctor first about any medications that look appealing through an add on tv. Also, it is the doctor's duty to provide them with the information the patient has requested, but inform the patient of the option they would recommend so the patient could make an informed decision about the drugs because ultimately it is the patients right to choose what they decide to either refuse or accept the medication.
ReplyDeleteThroughout my life I've taken a firm stance against pharmaceutical assistance and Bog Pharma Industries. I believe part of the problem, specifically in America is that we rely too much on pharmaceutical dependency. I understand the efficiency of medicine but I feel like too often the side effects are overlooked. Also, as the body builds a tolerance the solution is normally an increased dosage or use of the medication. Prozac is one that comes to mind as an antidepressant but one of its side effects is an increased likelihood of suicide or suicidal thoughts. I just believe people should be wary of the promises made by pharmaceuticals. I don't necessarily have an alternative solution but I'm naturally opposed to them.
ReplyDeleteThe way pharmaceutical companies brand a product ultimately predetermine how the product will be perceived by the public. Due to this, changes should be made to the way pharmaceutical companies can market their products because they are often times misleading. Side effects are played down especially when it comes to narcotics and antidepressants that need to instead be fully understood by all those taking them. Those medications are given out and sought after frequently and no one truly understands the weight over those drugs because of their high usage. Due to the misleading advertisements, people shouldn't be able to get any medication they want just because they see it on a commercial and think it fits into what they need, doctors go to school for a reason and should therefore be trusted when it comes to what they recommend. That being said they should also lay out all side effects that come along with the drug so that the patient can make a fully informed decision on what they're putting in their bodies.
ReplyDeleteDQ: What are some of the misleading facts that pharmaceutical companies present?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think it would harm the companies to be more forthcoming on information?