A well-educated and informed public about health care and its treatments is without a doubt the reason why DTCA of prescription drugs was originally brought about, and why it continues to be legal today. If advertisements were funded by sources outside of pharmaceutical companies whose main goal is to get people to buy their product, then that would be a possibility. With some allergy medications, pain relievers, and cold medicines that are available for purchase on any store shelf, it does make sense to advertise. People need to have the ability to diagnose and treat minor ailments and ills. The medications do not have dire consequences and have been thoroughly tested, and advertisements for them serve a purpose in allowing the public to treat
…show more content…
She proclaims, “At the end of the day, we should allow informed medical professionals, not advertising executives, to guide our healthcare spending. We must protect consumers from taking medications that may be unnecessary.” (DeLauro Introduces, Lanham: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc, 2016). Her proposal was that after a drug is approved for the public, that there be a three-year hold on advertising of that prescription drug. This would solve several issues. First, the drug would have three years with the public to see if it actually works. Second, physicians could prescribe a drug, not a brand name, a drug, to patients with total confidence. Thirdly, if after three years the drug is still on the market, then the risks and benefits portrayed in commercials would be far more accurate since they now cover at least a three year time-frame. Finally, it gives physicians and consumers the opportunity to recognize a dangerous drug and pull it from the market before it ever appears in marketing. Thus, a dangerous drug would have lessened opportunities to spread to the masses before it can reasonably be declared safe. This is a step in the right direction, if a total ban on prescription drug advertising is still too far off, then at least this tightens the reins on pharmaceutical
She proclaims, “At the end of the day, we should allow informed medical professionals, not advertising executives, to guide our healthcare spending. We must protect consumers from taking medications that may be unnecessary.” (DeLauro Introduces, Lanham: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc, 2016). Her proposal was that after a drug is approved for the public, that there be a three-year hold on advertising of that prescription drug. This would solve several issues. First, the drug would have three years with the public to see if it actually works. Second, physicians could prescribe a drug, not a brand name, a drug, to patients with total confidence. Thirdly, if after three years the drug is still on the market, then the risks and benefits portrayed in commercials would be far more accurate since they now cover at least a three year time-frame. Finally, it gives physicians and consumers the opportunity to recognize a dangerous drug and pull it from the market before it ever appears in marketing. Thus, a dangerous drug would have lessened opportunities to spread to the masses before it can reasonably be declared safe. This is a step in the right direction, if a total ban on prescription drug advertising is still too far off, then at least this tightens the reins on pharmaceutical