Page 362 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

Pharmaceut cal Advert s ng | 1

The prevalence of DTCA and the cultural authority it holds as a mode of con-
sumption effectively precludes alternative treatments, such as homeopathic or
natural remedies, as well as unbranded generic or over-the-counter medications.
In the context of the prevailing social order, DTCA privileges heavily advertised,
expensive medications over all other possibilities. This is evident both at the
micro-level, in the changing physician-patient relationship, and at the macro-
level, with the increasing costs of health care in America.
The World Health Organization itself debates the merits of DTCA, arguing
that it represents an “inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate busi-
ness goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of pro-
viders and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way” (Mintzes
2002, p. 908). However, there is also indisputable proof that DTCA facilitates
education and dialogue, as well as normalizes serious and previously stigma-
tized medical conditions. Presently, advertising’s persuasive modes remain the
primary source of public knowledge about certain medical issues and medica-
tions. In the absence of effective alternatives such as public education campaigns
at both national and global levels, critics can only hope that the profit motives of
the pharmaceutical industry can be reconciled with the serendipitous byprod-
ucts of education and personal health empowerment.

see also Advertising and Persuasion; Body Image; Disabilities and Media;
Hypercommercialism; Media and Citizenship; Product Placement; Video News
Releases; Women’s Magazines.
Further reading: Aitken, Murray, and Frazier Holt. “A Prescription for Direct Drug Mar-
keting.” The McKinsey Quarterly (Spring 2000); Alleyne, Sonia. “Commercial Medicine:
Black Doctors Say Drug Ads May Not Be a Bad Thing.” Black Enterprise 22, no. 1 (August
2002). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_1_33/ai_89648495; Angell, Mar-
cia. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How they Deceive Us and What to Do About
It. New York: Random House, 2004; “A Spoonful of Sugar: Pharmaceutical Compa-
nies Are Finding Sneaky—But Effective—Ways of Getting Around Laws that Prevent
Direct Advertising of Prescription Medicines to the Public. Should We Be Worried?”
Choice: Australian Consumers’ Association (June 2004). http://choice.com.au/goArticle.
aspx?id=104325; Avorn, Jerry. Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks and Costs of
Prescription Drugs. New York: Knopf, 2004; Bell, Robert A., Michael S. Wilkes, and
Richard L. Kravitz. “Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising, 1989–1998.”
Journal of Family Practice 49, no. 4 (April 2000); Berensen, Alex, Gardiner Harris,
Barry Meier, and Andrew Pollack. “Despite Warnings, Drug Giant Took Long Path to
Vioxx Recall.” New York Times, November 14, 2004, A1; Brown, Anne B. “The Direct-
to-Consumer Advertising Dilemma.” Patient Care 35, no. 6 (March 30, 2001): 22–33;
Brown, David. “Promise and Peril of Vioxx Cast Harsher Light on New Drugs.” Wash-
ington Post, October 4, 2004, A14; Charatan, Fred. “US Prescription Drug Sales Boosted
by Advertising.” The British Medical Journal 321, no.7264 (September 30, 2000): 783;
“Costs of Recall Hurt Merck’s Results; Lilly’s Profit is Up” New York Times, October
22, 2004, C3; Elliott, Stuart. “Take Two Direct Sales Pitches for Prescription Drugs
and Call Your Pollster in the Morning,” New York Times, July 29, 1998, D5; Foley, Lisa.
“The Medication Information Gap: Older Consumers in the Void Between Direct-to-
Consumer Advertising and Professional Care.” Generations 24, no. 4 (Winter 2000–01):
49; Higgs, Robert. Hazardous to Our Health? FDA Regulation of Health Care Products.