Essay Example on Prescription Drug Abuse: A Growing Public Health Crisis

Introduction

Usually, prescribed drugs are very strong; hence they ought to be described by experts such as doctors and dentists. There are three categories of prescribed medications that are often abused. They include opioids, which are pain relievers, Depressants that reduce anxiety and help an individual to get sleep, and finally, the stimulants that treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD). The misuse of these drugs is alarming and has become great public health apprehension as overdose can cause death, while frequent use results in drug addiction. There has been a heated debate on whether prescribed drugs should be advertised or not, as explored in this paper.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Evolution of Drug Advertising: From Physician-Centric to Consumer-Oriented

For several decades, manufacturers endorsed medical devices and drugs solely to the physicians. It was ludicrous to promote the prescribed medications to the public due to patterns of the patient-physician relationship upheld back then. The trend went on till the mid-twentieth century when the manufacturers proposed variations in marketing strategies to include their customers directly. The proposal was addressed to the FDA, stating that consumer protection should not only be viewed as a precise delivery of knowledge to the public. They said that it should also include providing the people with the experience that would have otherwise been obtained, were it not for the adverts.

Conflicting Views: Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Drug Advertisements

Similarly, the regulatory and political climate was changing in favor of the consumers. It allowed them more selections and also vested them in participating in making decisions about their medications. This, however, raised the alarm among researches who sought to know if the adverts would sufficiently serve the two purposes i.e., the health need of the public as well as the promotional interests of the manufacturers. There has been an inherent conflict because organizations are ultimately accountable to shareholders and not the patients. The shareholders, on the other hand, aim at increasing their sales without much consideration of the patient's need for rational prescription of drugs.

Supporting the Case for Drug Advertisements: Empowering Informed Patients

Crystal Adams, a Sociology professor at the University of Miami, wrote a journal article in 2016 explaining the importance of advertising prescription drugs. According to Adams, advertising prescription drugs helps to improve health by informing the public. He further explained that the adverts are a way of spreading valuable and educational facts about the product and the conditions that are linked to the drugs (Adams, 1395-1396). There is, therefore, a need to advertise the drugs since a better-educated patient can make informed decisions regarding their health.

Countering the Arguments: The Dark Side of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Ads

On the contrary, the general specialists at Royal New Zealand College wrote an article in March 2017 explaining the need to ban the advertisements of prescription drugs. According to these experts, a direct advert to consumers poses notable public harm via misinformation (Ventola, 669). They further argue that these adverts lead to hiked demands for unnecessary and costly treatment resulting in an inappropriate prescription of the drugs.

Another point argued by those who support the adverts is that it is a way of motivating patients to give the physicians the info they get about products and the related diseases, as described in the adverts. Further arguments state that physicians have time constraints; hence it is necessary to educate the patients outside the doctor's office so that they can maximally use time with their physicians. Also, the supporters of the course argue that constant advertisements encourage patients to discuss issues of highly stigmatized diseases (Adams, 1395-1396) like depression and ADHD without fear.

The argument is, however, countered by the opponents, who say that even though the proponents claim that they give patients information regarding the conditions and new products, the content of these adverts has a different quality and is misleading. They further argue that most of the adverts consist of incongruous citations made to support the promotional claims. The misappropriation of scientific evidence, therefore, destroys trust in evidence-based guidance, confusing the entire public. Direct advertisement thus increases the probability of a consumer requesting for advertised products, and being sure of having an illness, leading to higher prescriptions (Ventola, 669). These consequences have adverse results, such as damaging the doctor-patient rapport, and the creation of excessive expenses to the health systems and the patients.

The American Advertising Federation's Position vs. The American College of Physicians' Stand

Another key supporter of prescribed drugs advertisement is The American Advertising Federation (AAF) who issued its position statement in 2008. The AAF's report stated that the pharmaceutical companies have the right to advertise their products to consumers directly as long as they disclose appropriate information, and make verified claims. The association further argues that the anticipated cessations on pharmaceutical adverts violate the First Amendment that defends commercial communications (American Advertising Federation). Barring the advertisements, therefore, increases ignorance among the patients who are not motivated by an advert to consult a doctor concerning a condition.

A contrary view to AAFs was, however, given by the American College of Physicians (ACP) via a statement that as delivered by the MD, Donna Sweet, in 2005. They stated that the advertisement of these drugs did not only breed misinformed and confused public, but also damage the relationship between patients and physicians. It obstructs the medicine practice by challenging the judgments made by the physicians. They gave an example of the toenail advert, which is very misinforming. It is, however, hard to explain to seniors that the drug may not be effective; it is very toxic and costly (Behrman). The explanation also consumes valuable time that could otherwise have been used to handle other cases such as diabetes, cholesterol, and vascular diseases.

Andrew Weil's Opposition: Unveiling the Dangers of Drug Advertisements

Lastly, Andrew Weil, the founder of the Arizona Center for Integrative medicine, wrote an article in 2009, opposing the advertisement initiative. In his article, Andrew gave three reasons why he opposed the adverts. Firstly, he said that the drug adverts reinforced the belief that pharmaceutical drugs cure all diseases, and this has led to poor lifestyle choices. Secondly, he stated that most of the advertised drugs are ineffective and have severe side effects that are concealed by manufacturers. He further explains that the widely publicized drugs have the potential for huge profits, financial, and political interests; hence they are speeded to markets before adequate scientific analysis. Thirdly, he explained that these adverts dodge better sources of facts as the people believe requesting the advertised drug is a proactive measure towards their health (Wilkes et al., 110-128).

Conclusion

In conclusion, direct to Consumer adverts have had rapid growth in the past decades and has become the most conspicuous health communication encountered by the public. The FDA regulates these adverts. The rules it implements have been criticized as not only relaxed but also ineffectively enforced. There is, however, limited scientific data, but research has reviewed that the adverts have both harmful as well as helpful impacts to the public. There is a fair balance between the adverts that both oppose as well as support the prescribed drugs advertisement initiative. Besides, there is evidence to support the viewpoints of both sides. There have therefore been proposals to either ban or severely curb the prescribed drugs advertisements.

Works Cited

Adams, Crystal. "Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs can inform the public and improve health." JAMA oncology 2.11 (2016): 1395-1396. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/article-abstract/2542921

American Advertising Federation. "DTC Prescription Drug Advertising." AAF-The Unifying Voice for Advertising, 2008, 76.12.169.172/default.asp?id=248. Accessed 21 Apr. 2020.13 Dec. 2018, www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.19.2.110.

Behrman, Rachel E. "The Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising on Seniors' Health and Health Care Costs. Testimony Before the Senate Special Committee on Aging. United States Senate, September 29, 2005." (2005). https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/should-prescription-drugs-be-advertised-directly-to-consumers-pro-con-quotes/

Ventola, C. Lee. "Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: therapeutic or toxic?" Pharmacy and Therapeutics 36.10 (2011): 669. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/

Wilkes, Michael S., Robert A. Bell, and Richard L. Kravitz. "Direct-To-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising: Trends, Impact, And Implications: Aiming drug ads at consumers means big business for drug companies, but its effect on clinical care is not yet known." Health affairs 19.2 (2000): 110-128. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.19.2.110