Ashley Epperson

Taking Sides #1
BIOL 1900 403
6/13/16
Taking Sides Assignment #1
I decided to research the question Does Direct-to-Consumer Drug
Advertising Enhance Patient Choice?. The position that agrees with this
statement is given by Paul Antony, a Chief Medical Officer of PhRMA. The
positions that disagree with this statement are given by David A. Kessler and
Douglas A. Levy, who are physicians that are experiencing the results of
direct-to-consumer drug advertising.
According to Paul Antony, the goal for DTC (direct-to-consumer)
advertising is patient education. There are certain regulations that television
commercials and public advertisements have to abide by in order to have
their advertisements presented to the public. This ensures that the public
are receiving quality information that has been reviewed by the FDA. Antony
claims that because of DTC advertising, patients are more informed about
drugs that are available, and they are able to communicate more efficiently
with their doctors because they are more knowledgeable about the
medication. A study that was published in The New England Journal of
Medicine stated that nearly half of all adults in the United States fail to
receive recommended health care this poses serious threats to the health
of the American public that could contribute to thousands of preventable
deaths in the United States each year. Antony believes that DTC
advertising helps consumers recognize symptoms and seek appropriate care
from their physicians. Not only is DTC advertising improving patient health,
but it also leads to lower spending on other aspects in the health care field.
Typically the newer drugs are the drugs that are being advertised to the
public. By replacing an old drug with a new drug, the industry is able to save

$111 per drug overall. This is because the new drugs are able to eliminate
more health problems that older drugs cannot. Although Antony creates a
very informative statement, he makes the statement Because of DTC
advertising, patients become more involved in their health care decisions.
This to me is a fallacy because although it may be true, he states this as a
fact which has not been proven. By not saying patients could become more
involved, he is stating that this is a factual effect of DTC advertising.
On the other hand, several physicians such as Kessler and Levy believe
that direct-to-consumer advertising is not beneficial to the public for a
number of reasons. Typically, a DTC advertisement is created to appeal
emotion, and has a tendency to be barren of facts. Kessler and Levy stated
that the most concerning matter of DTC advertising is that many patients
how view these advertisements begin to think that this prescription is going
to solve their medical problems, but they are disregarding their medical
history or the risk factors that may be accompanied by this new drug. Unlike
an advertisement and a patient alone, physicians are able to take into
account each individual and their needs, and they are able to prescribe the
proper medication if necessary. In 2002, survey results came out that stated
that 41% of all physicians believe their patients were confused about a
drugs efficacy because of DTC ads that they saw. Kessler and Levy believe
that this fact alone illustrates that DTC ads do not effectively convey
important or factual information that is vital for a consumer to know, such as
product risks and benefits. Although this is an opinion, the physicians have
stated this as a fact in their informatory passage, which makes it a fallacy.
By stating This creates a fallacy in their interview. Another statistic that
was given in 2002 is that 22% of physicians said they felt pressured to
prescribe a drug when a patient requested it. A primary physician has the
proper knowledge to know whether or not a drug is right for you, but many
people disregard their opinions and choose to chase after the DTC
advertisements.

In my opinion, direct-to-consumer drug advertising is beneficial to the

patient. 24.8 million people have talked to their physician about a drug that
they saw on the television, which is 24.8 people that happen to be more
informed about the prescriptions that are available to them (Taking Sides, pg.
49). DTC advertising presents a unique opportunity for patients to become
more involved in their own personal health care, and take initiative of the
prescriptions that they are taking. To my understanding, this may provide
more work for a physician because they have to explain the risks and other
crucial information about the drug. Although that may be true, I think it is
fair and reasonable to allow the public to see the DTC advertisements and
determine whether they need to go discuss their health with a physician or
not.
When reviewing both sides of this controversy, I found that the
statements given by Antony were much more reliable and fact based.
Antony gave empirical information that proved his statements to be tried and
tested through science. An example of this would be when Antony states
that prescription ads are appropriate for all audiences, and proceeds to give
the Guiding Principles statement that requires the DTC advertising to follow
this principle. I found the physicians side of the argument to be very
unreliable because they gave minimal factual evidence of the statements
that they were providing. More than not, they were diminishing the effects of
DTC advertising without any factual information at all. An example of this
would be when they state that the ads do not contain the right amount of
information that is actually informative to the public. After creating a whole
paragraph based off of this statement, there was no evidence to relate back
to that paragraph of opinion. Overall, Antony had a very promising
argument that gave vital information concerning drug-to-consumer
advertising.

DTC advertising is one size fits all