Consumer Advertising Ethical Essay Example for Free

Consumer Advertising Ethical EssayShe then pulls protrude a magazine and begins to turn by means of the pages when she find an advertisement for a prescription drug to treat migraines. This drug could ease her pain and let her resume her normal activities. Is it wrong for her to see this ad? Absolutely not. ?Sharing info with the earthly concern close workable cures is deterrent examplely by rights. Withholding training that fag save someones life is mor onlyy wrong.Direct advertizing to consumers of pharmaceutical drugs is ethical based on a deontological perspective. Kant considered what is right over what is good to be outstanding (wikipedia). In the case of direct-to-consumer drug advertise, the right of sharing allegeation almost cures and possible ailments outweighs any possible good that can be made on behalf of the advertisers. It does not matter that the advertising companies and the pharmaceutical companies entrust make money off of the patients purch asing the drugs.What is most important is sharing the knowledge with those patients. When the general public is presented with information about pharmaceutical drugs not only are they given information about something that can provide treatments for symptoms they may be having, but it also informs them about what certain groupings of symptoms may be. For casing, a individual having strange pains in his/her legs and doesnt know what it is and might not seek medical attention. However, if he/she sees an advertisement on television that describes those exact symptoms he/she is experiencing, the advertisement would give the ailment a possible name.This information could help that person when he/she goes to see his/her indemnify. The patient can describe what he/she is experiencing and tell the doctor about the ad that made him/her think in that location was a reason to visit the doctor for treatment. near cases will be serious and another(prenominal)s will be minor, this is not im portant. What is important is that the public was granted this information in an easily accessible format the advertisement. ?The United States and New Zealand are the only two developed countries that entirelyow direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs (DeGeorge 320).Health care works differently in the U. S. than in other parts of the world like Europe and Canada. Because of the major differences in health care, DTC is more than welcomed in these countries than in others. Here in the U. S. many people are paying for their own health care out of pocket unlike other places where it is provided at no cost. In other countries you dont crap to worry about whether or not you can afford to go to the doctor and/or pay for the visit and prescriptions. DTC advertising is more welcomed in the U. S. because people want to intent empowered and be given choices.Here in that respect are a lot of options because people pay for what they think they need even if it is not the dress hat option for them. ?People make decisions based on what they are convinced they need. In the U. S. you, or your insurance policy that you most likely pay for, have to pay for every lab and every doctor visit. So in the U. S. many people would rather treat symptoms than fix a problem. DTC advertising knows this and uses it to their advantage. Canadian medical checkup Association presidentHenry H scoread, M. D. stated, The message U. S. consumers are getting is that pharmaceuticals are simply consumer commodities rather than labyrinthine therapeutics.We think that interferes with the physicianpatient relationship by raising the expectations of patients and pressuring physicians to prescribe drugs. (Fintor) This is a prime example of why other developed nations are not proponents of DTC advertising. ?When you look at direct-to-consumer advertising based on a utilitarian perspective it would be considered morally wrong. In utilitarianism you can only judge somethings moral v alue once you know all of the consequences (wikipedia). This means that every consequence needs to be examined and weighed.As a result of DTC advertising of pharmaceutical drugs, not only is the pubic informed about illnesses and a variety of ways to treat said illnesses, but also a plethora of other consequences that add negatively to the moral value of the action. ?One negative consequence to seriously consider is the money that is gained by pharmaceutical companies, advertisers, and doctors. Money will drive people to do almost anything regardless if it is morally right or wrong. When consumers see an advertisement for a drug they might try to identify with the ad and feel it necessary to visit their doctor.Once they visit the doctor they will claim to have symptoms that were described in the advertisement and then ask for a prescription to the drugs that were shown. Once the doctor prescribes these drugs the money is gained by all the involved parties and is lost by the patients . ?Many of the drugs prescribed have harmful side-effects that are downplayed by the advertisements. Its all about the money and not the well-being of the patients.This is clearly displayed in a study that showed that a pharmaceutical company saw a return of $4. 0 for every dollar spent on advertising (DeGeorge 319). Thats an incredible 420% percent expediency margin. With profits like that its easy to understand why the moral consequences have been ignored. It would be morally wrong for people to take advantage of consumers and capitalize on their illnesses. If the pharmaceutical companies were truly all about informing the public about illnesses and treatments they would do it without receiving any money. Taking away the profit aspect of the pharmaceutical world would change the advertising and probably the drugs themselves.With no profits involved there would not be the push that there is to find something that could work to treat an illness regardless of the consequences. Scie ntists would hand to find treatments that would help people and not harm them this is the basis of utilitarianism, weighing all of the good and the bad.In conclusion, direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs has both positive and negative consequences. Do I believe people do money off of the misfortune of others is right? No. However, I do believe is our duty to inform and educate people about illnesses and possible treatments.The health and well-being of the population of the world is much more important than someone making a dollar.