The legal drug wars
Milt Freudenheim’s article entitled "Showdown Looms in Congress Over Drug Advertising on TV" illustrates one of the important impacts that media can have on individuals. While the true influence of advertising is still generally unknown, the fact remains that the pharmaceutical industry has been increasing its spending on drug advertising, focusing particularly on a direct-to-consumer technique. (Spending rose from $1.1 billion in 1997 to $4.2 billion in 2005, according to the article.) In addition, according to Sheila P. Burke, a health policy expert, “broad-scale advertising can sometimes lead to a rapid increase in the use of a drug.” The advertising of drugs so new that doctors have not had time to learn about them is a good example of how the pharmaceutical companies are attempting to directly influence popular tastes. Advertising can be a powerful tool, and when consumers are exposed to a positive and sometimes (as in the case of Merck’s Vioxx and AstraZeneca’s Crestor,) deceitful message about a drug without the counterbalance of advice from a doctor, they may alter their choices to reflect the influence of these advertisements as opposed to looking after their own well being.
This use of media to promote a product as controversial as new drugs is, on a national level, a good example of the conflict between the laws of free speech in the United States and the protection of consumers. Drugs such as Vioxx can be found to have negative and sometimes deadly side effects long after having been placed on the market, an important point to know when pharmaceutical companies have been strongly promoting the drug. The question then remains whether it is more important to curb the drug companies’ influence through the disallowance of direct-to-consumer advertising or to maintain it, as it remains a legal form of free speech (an issue that both sides are avoiding bringing to the Supreme Court for fear of losing.) The article does point out though, that according to recent surveys, the public is indeed wary of the use of the direct-to-consumer method for the promotion of new drugs. This point is compounded by the fact that, according to the article, no other countries allow consumer advertising of drugs apart from New Zealand. Should the US continue to uphold ideals of free speech in the face of the negative influence advertising can have on consumers? Or should it learn from other countries and refuse to let new drugs be advertised right away? At what point does this become censorship?
Having watched one too many ads for “sleep aids” and ED, I personally side close to censorship. Media is a very influential tool, particularly advertising, and I don’t think it is right that large companies should use this tool for products as powerful as drugs. Having spent most of my life abroad, I also believe that the number of drug advertisements on television reflect not only the consumer culture, but also the drug culture of the United States. In fact, media in general is a good way to investigate the culture of different countries, as well as the overall increase in globalization. This then is where I come in. I am a junior International Relations concentrator, focusing on the PCI track, and my two passions are IR and music. I work at WBRU doing both on-air dj-ing and sound production, and I have used these skills to create several sound pieces for other classes. I also have a moderate background in video, from being a character in the BTV show “Double Blind” as a freshman, to taking courses such as French Cinema and Foundation Media of Video/Cinema. I hope to write my thesis on the correlations between popular music and diplomacy, and I believe this course will not only give me a good basis for the investigation of that topic, but also a better understanding of how ideas are effectively communicated in a media-driven world.