Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is banning direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicine justified paternalism?

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New Zealand is one of two OECD countries in the world where direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicine (DTCA-PM) is permitted. Increase in such activity in recent years has resulted in a disproportionate increase in dispensary volume of heavily advertised medicines. Concern for the potential harm to healthcare consumers and the public healthcare system has prompted the medical profession to call for a ban on DTCA-PM as the best way of protecting the public interest. Such blanket prohibition however also interferes with the public’s right of access to information. This paper will examine if banning DTCA-PM would constitute a justified form of paternalism in the context of today’s New Zealand.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  1. GAO. Prescription drugs: FDA oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising has limitations. In: Report to Congressional Requestors. United States General Accounting Office; 2002.

  2. PHARMAC Analysis of the increase in dispensing volumes in 2001/2002. In Wellington: PHARMAC; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ministry of Health. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines in New Zealand. A discussion paper. In. Wellington: Ministry of Health, New Zealand; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Toop L, Richards D, Dowell T, Tilyard M, Fraser T, Arroll B. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs in New Zealand: For health or for profit? In: New Zealand Departments of General Practice, Christchurch, Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland Schools of Medicine; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Health Care Program. Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) and Marketing of Pharmaceuticals http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/ rxads.htm). accessed 10 May 2005.

  6. Pratt P. The results of a regulatory compliance survey of direct-to-consumer advertisements for medicines. In. Wellington: Medsafe: 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dworkin R. Taking Rights Seriously, 7th edn. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review. In: 2 NZLR. vol. 2: CA; 2000: 16.

  9. Feinberg J. Harm to Others, vol. I. New York: Oxford University Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  10. VanDeVeer D. Paternalistic Intervention — the moral bounds on benevolence. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Feinberg J. Harm to Self, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hodnett J. Targeting consumers. Medical Marketing & Media 1995; 30(11):91–95.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Calfee J E. Public policy issues in direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Journal of public policy and marketing 2002; 21(2):174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Colmar Brunton. Consumer opinion: Prescription medicines information. Prepared for Department of General Practice Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences. In: Colmar Brunton Social Research Agency; 2003.

  15. Consumers’ Association (UK). DTCA survey results. In. London: Consumers’ Association (UK); 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Massey News. Massey Researchers Question Otago DTCA Survey Conclusions. In: Massey News, Massey University, 2003.

  17. Association of New Zealand Advertisers. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicine (DTCA) — part of a well functioning democracy and economy. In: New Zealand Direct Marketing Association Inc., 2004.

  18. Saunders B. DTCA and the cost of asthma inhalers. The New Zealand Medical Journal 2003; 116(1185):672.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Aiken K. J. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs: physician survey preliminary results. In: Rockville, Maryland: Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, FDA; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Eagle L, Chamberlain K: DTC Dogma, doubts, diversity and divergence: Perspectives from the medical professions regarding the impact of the promotion of medications direct to consumers-Technical report 03.01. In. Auckland: Massey University; 2003; 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  21. The Vioxx Recall (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/ s1341036.htm) accessed 10 May 2005

  22. United States Senate Committee on Finance Hearings — ‘FDA, Merck and Vioxx. Putting patient safety first? (http://finance.senate.gov/ sitepages/hearing 111804.htm), accessed 10 May 2005.

  23. Kahn C. How the media influences women’s perceptions of health care. Marketing Health Services 2001 (Spring):13–17.

  24. Allison-Ottey S D, Ruffin K, Allision K B. To do no harm. In: Survey of the physicians of the National Medical Association regarding perceptions on DTC advertisements. Survey of the physicians of the National Medical Association regarding perceptions on DTC advertisements; 2002.

Download references

Authors
  1. Uvonne Lau General Surgeon, PhD Candidate in Bioethics
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lau, U. Is banning direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicine justified paternalism?. J. Bioethical Inquiry 2, 69–74 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02448845

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02448845

Keywords

Search

Navigation