Hello Bill, knowing nothing myself about ethics, medicine or law, I feel fully qualified to give a completely naïve view on your article. Whilst I agree with you that the subliminal message given out by this form of advertising is very damaging, I don’t know if your recommended course of action in realistic.
Smoking damages ones health and here in the UK the government has made it a legal requirement that all packets of cigarettes should carry prominent health warnings. And of course, then the companies must comply. But to expect them to put out an advert, of their own volition, that in any way admits to their product being less than wonderful, seems to me to be expecting too much.
So, isn’t it the same with pharmaceutical companies? They will surely comply with legal requirements but if they are placed under no legal obligation why should they include negative information about their product in their own adverts, even if it is true. I take your point that they are selling a drug that has more severe implications than selling sneakers, but surely it is up to government and / or the regulating authorities they employ to protect the public. Even if pharmaceutical companies sell potentially dangerous drugs they are not the policing authority, just the provider; as long as they do not break any laws by providing products that are authorised then I can’t see that they are doing wrong.
There might be a moral case for companies to behave differently but they operate in a world where commercial rules dominate and perhaps rightly regard morality as a luxury they cannot afford. If the issue you raise is a valid one for public safety, the only answer is for government to determine what rules must apply and compel everyone in the industry to abide by them; that way no one company is put in the position of having to decide whether to be commercially successful, or morally correct.
Featuring Content From:
By using this service, you accept our Terms of Use. Please read them. The consumer health information on is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. You should promptly seek professional medical care if you have any concern about your health, and you should always consult your physician before starting a fitness regimen. Copyright © 2012 Remedy Health Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Hello Bill, knowing nothing myself about ethics, medicine or law, I feel fully qualified to give a completely naïve view on your article. Whilst I agree with you that the subliminal message given out by this form of advertising is very damaging, I don’t know if your recommended course of action in realistic.
Smoking damages ones health and here in the UK the government has made it a legal requirement that all packets of cigarettes should carry prominent health warnings. And of course, then the companies must comply. But to expect them to put out an advert, of their own volition, that in any way admits to their product being less than wonderful, seems to me to be expecting too much.
So, isn’t it the same with pharmaceutical companies? They will surely comply with legal requirements but if they are placed under no legal obligation why should they include negative information about their product in their own adverts, even if it is true. I take your point that they are selling a drug that has more severe implications than selling sneakers, but surely it is up to government and / or the regulating authorities they employ to protect the public. Even if pharmaceutical companies sell potentially dangerous drugs they are not the policing authority, just the provider; as long as they do not break any laws by providing products that are authorised then I can’t see that they are doing wrong.
There might be a moral case for companies to behave differently but they operate in a world where commercial rules dominate and perhaps rightly regard morality as a luxury they cannot afford. If the issue you raise is a valid one for public safety, the only answer is for government to determine what rules must apply and compel everyone in the industry to abide by them; that way no one company is put in the position of having to decide whether to be commercially successful, or morally correct.
u also may know nothing about history- direct to consumer marketing of drugs has been and is illegal in most of the world, only relatively recently legalized in the us (80s)- the very good reason that it was illegal is to avoid the potentially dangerous shenanigans the marketers use to sell candy, i mean drugs- the only thing holding us back from re-regulating the advertising market is the non-democratic structure of government where money equals access, and we all know how much money the drug companies have- cigarettes is a good analogy- we have illegalized the mass marketing and the danger from the product has dropped in frequency ( and moved to the third world, where the governments are cheaper to buy...
Yes, add history to the list, I know nothing about that either. Regards, Martin