Pharmaceutical Advertisements

In a new article in the New Standard, an independent non-profit news source, discusses the link between pharmaceutical advertisements and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We’ve all seen the pharmaceutical ads for arthritis, osteoporosis, sexual enhancement, and the latest for restless leg syndrome (a problem I hear is sweeping the nation). Most of us realize how fake these commercials are and that they are a bit over the top in their method of marketing the product. The product has long stopped being the focus of the commercials, it now depends on which celebrity is a spokesperson, how funny the commercial is or how dramatic they can make the ailment seem so that everyone feel that they are suffering. The argument this article makes is that it is not right for pharmaceutical companies to get away with this and they should be held accountable for what some feel is unmoral behavior. Currently the FDA does impose certain requirements on these pharmaceutical ads and the FDA is supposed to prohibit false and misleading messages as well as clarifying the mandatory risk information (Mehta). The article claims that, “Though drug companies are required to submit their advertisements to the FDA, the agency does not review them before they are released to the public” (Mehta). It is within the FDA’s power to have these pharmaceutical companies change their advertisements if they find information that “violates regulations” (Mehta). However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Released a report last November that found that the FDA reviews only a “small portion” of the advertisements it receives, and does not review with the same consistent criteria” (Mehta). The FDA has realized that their neck is on the line and has recently formulated plans to ask Congress to, “chare drug companies fees in order to fund FDA review of advertisements before they go public” (Mehta). However, consumer advocates are saying this would give the pharmaceutical companies, “way too much leverage over the FDA and has resulted in rushing drugs to the market” (Mehta). All aspects of the medical field have always been in a tough position due to the ethics and values involved.

So what is “right” in cases like these? The article suggests that pharmaceutical companies are, in some cases, getting away with false advertising because the FDA is not thoroughly reviewing advertisements before they are sent out. Whose fault is it that these false advertisements are going out, the company that produces them or the organization that allows them? People don’t care whose fault it is, they just care that it is happening and in the process proving what selfish, valueless people are making decisions on behalf of the public. Garfinkel discusses how people demand that social science be “value-free” (p.134), they “desire to build social science on the model of natural science; the ideal is of value-free inquiry “just like in physics”” (p.134). Like I discussed in a previous blog, most people don’t see in grey, they see in black and white. Therefore people expect science to be value-free because they want to believe that bias can not enter a laboratory.

Let’s look at these medical scientists who are creating these drugs, it could be argued that their work is value-free because all they do is measure and test and create drugs with the intent to help people. It is not their fault that after they create the drug the marketing department conveys it in the wrong way. That’s a great and naive belief. Who is not to say that maybe those scientist don’t cut corners a bit because they know if they can create a miracle drug they will be rewarded for it. There have always been cases like this where drugs are recalled because they are not producing the desired effect. Is this the marketing teams fault for producing a misleading advertisement, or is it the scientists fault because maybe they cut a few corners in the production of the drug so they could reap the benefits? This jumps back to a concept initiated by Garfinkel’s introduction of individual and structural factors. Like everything else the idea of “value-free” is not just a structural concept but an individual one as well. In cases like these that involve people and especially people concerned about money, there is not a chance for a “value-free” environment because despite what people would like to think, people think about themselves first and foremost.

Bibliography-

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/4716