TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS

Name: Pablo Granado

Course: Biology 1090 Human Biology Professor Olsen
Book: Taking Sides Readings
Issue number: 3 Title of issue: Does Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising Enhance Patient Choice?
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side. The author name is Paul Antony and his major thesis is
that the direct to consumer advertising drugs are powerful in educating many people, and a lot of
these people are more willing to talk with the doctors about their concerns or illness. The patient is
then more likely to take the medications.
2. Author and major thesis of the No side. The authors are David A. Kessler and Douglas A. Levy
and the major thesis is that the advertising is mostly to a specific category of medications and not for
others bigger health issues.
3. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side. NO side, pharmaceutical
spending on television ads was $654 million in 2001 and $1.19 billion in 2005. Industry spokesman
Paul Antony told a Senate hearing in 2005, DTC advertising can be a powerful tool in educating
millions of people and improving health.
YES side, On July 29, 2005 PhRMAs Board of Directors unanimously approved Guiding Principles
on Direct-to Consumer Advertisements about Prescription Medicine. May/June 2003 study published
in the Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy which examined claims data from 3 of the 10 largest
health plans in California to determine the appropriateness of prescription medication use based
upon widely accepted treatment guidelines.
4. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side. Yes side, Patients are
seeking more information and treatments to battle diseases. The DTC advertising help patients to
discuss more personal problems with the doctors than they ever did before.
No side: The advertising for drugs are more emotional appeals and dont provide enough details
about the drug. Patients expecting simple answers to the complex questions that they may have
regarding in treatments.
5. Briefly identify as many fallacies (lack of reasoning or validity) on the Yes side as you can. Some
doctors complain about the drug companys launch advertising campaigns without helping to
educate them. Prior to 1990 people were not diagnosed properly with depression. Many new
medicines replace higher-cost surgeries and hospital care.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can: .No matter how much the industry
claims its advertising provides the question is if the industry is acting for the public benefit.
Consumers make a health decision based on what they learn from television ads, spend money on
brand name medicines and on medicine that they may not need.

7. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis?
Why? The yes side because I truly believe commercials can help to educate people about diseases
and prevent some risks. More commercials are teaching something. Also they tell you the bad things
that can happen if you use them and the consequences of the drug that they contain.
8. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases? I
think both of the authors are strong in their opinions and they have valid points. Over the counter
medicines and prescriptions are very expensive without insurance it is almost impossible to pay for
medications. Both articles are biased in their own opinion.
9. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the
material in these articles? Why? I agree with the author in the yes side because they have a lot of
details in the article and data to help understand his point. I believe that doctors and pharmaceuticals
need to educate more people to prevent problems in the future. Advertising about drugs is important
because people taking medication think there is only one medication they can choose from and there
are more options that can help as well.