Be it in books, movies, or real life, a situation where secrets are kept never ends well. For pregnant women in the mid-1900s, the lack of knowledge on the drug thalidomide had drastic effects on their babies. Phocomelia is the malformation of the limbs; when taken by an expectant mother, thalidomide interrupts the development of the baby’s body parts. Had information on the thalidomide's negative effects been available to those mothers, ten thousand less children would have suffered phocomelia, and five thousand more would have survived the case. Users of thalidomide were only informed of the benefits of the drug, but they were not informed of the consequences of using it. Although some believe that prescription drug ads encourage the sustainment of personal health,  it is actually true that marketing companies use manipulative techniques, and therefore, prescription drugs should not be directly advertised to consumers.

Currently, prescription drugs are advertised on television throughout the United States, and although some people do not pay attention to these ads, there are still many out there that tune in. Some viewers just watch to temporarily relieve their boredom while others actually want to see if anything, such as a symptom or a treatment for that symptom, applies to them. Prescription drugs are advertised to grab the attention of potential consumers; however, like what occurred in the thalidomide incident, the audience does not get all the necessary information about whether the drug can or cannot benefit them (Donohue 1). Even though the information in the ads may seem like enough to most viewers, it does not give a clear image of how these prescription drugs will react with a certain person or if it will even solve the patient's problem (Young 1).  

Prescription drugs should only be advertised to doctors and physicians. They know everything there is to know about particular drugs whereas a person who learned about the drug on television knows only the small amount of information given in the three-minute advertisement. A typical advertisement is very generic and always asks the question “Do you have this problem?” It is then claimed that the featured drug is able to fix the viewers’ problem, and following this, viewers are advised to consult their doctors before using the drug. Prescription drug advertisements are also required to state the side effects of the drug being promoted; the side effects are usually stated during the “happy moments” of the advertisement. Even the voiceover is sped up sometimes. In either case, the aim is to distract viewers; the creators want attention on what benefits the drug can provide and not on its undesirable consequences. In other words, the focus is intended to be on the good and not the bad. Only half of the story is told.

If consumers feel as though they do not know enough about a drug that was prescribed to them and want to know more, they can educate themselves about their prescriptions by asking their doctor; products do not have to be advertised on television for a person to learn about the substances they are taking specific to a problem. If a patient goes to a doctor for medical advice, the patient should not be the one deciding what to use; doctors know which drugs will be most beneficial for their patient.

Not only do viewers not get a sufficient amount of information, but these supposedly beneficial drugs are being advertised mainly for marketing purposes. Of course, the FDA asserts that one aim of the advertisements is to make potential consumers aware of products that can help them (1). It is true that the advertisements encourage the public to be conscious of their well-being; however, the economical statistics are exact while the effects of direct-to-consumer ads on viewers can only be estimated. In 1990, the total spending on these advertisements was $47 million, and only seven years later, this figure grew to $1.2 billion (Ventola 1). Business relies on profit; clearly, direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs bring in an incredible amount of money. Marketing companies would not want to give up something that contributes so much to its overall income. Despite their goal of motivating viewers to be aware of their personal health, money is guaranteed. The inspiration for others to self-advocate is not.

Money is key in the marketing industry. Without financial gain, there is no way for it to thrive, and without advertisements, companies are left with next to nothing in their pockets. There are many types of ads including those on billboards and those that air on television; the marketing industry relies on quantity over quality, so it is no surprise that a number of its products lacks merit. The regulations in the industry are far too lenient. Even so, the business stands tall with an unwavering ten-figure income. Marketing’s success does not provide a valid excuse for the duplicity of prescription drug advertisements, however, and companies should understand that what they are promoting can heavily affect lives if ads are interpreted the wrong way by viewers.

Drugs are not designer clothes. Drugs are not state-of-the-art appliances. Drugs are not playthings, and they are certainly not adorable little light-up plush creatures for children. While all of these products are harmless, drugs are not. The marketing industry has allowed prescription drugs to be viewed the same way every other advertised product is viewed; they get tossed around by consumers like some new toy everyone wants to try out. This behavior is unacceptable. There are facts and there are warnings, but what is currently included in prescription drug advertisements is still not enough to keep ignorant minds at bay. Yes, the truth will drive some away; in spite of that, it is in the best interest of an individual to not risk his health. A loss of potential consumers would mean a loss in earnings, but money is not as important as the ensured safety of others. The ads need to stop beating around the bush for the sake of profit and lay down the law; drugs can do serious harm to a person.

Due to the deceiving methods they contain and their underhanded purposes, direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs should not be aired. Everyone wants to experience their well-being. Since achieving the state of being perfectly healthy is near impossible, everyone turns to treatment, and the use of drugs to better ourselves is the biggest craze out there. Nevertheless, everyone has the right to know the truth about what they are consuming. There are many effects drugs have on each of us that can jeopardize our health, and endangering ourselves is not worth the risk. More often than not, the suffering that is vaguely mentioned outweighs the known, potential benefits of the drug. It’s best to play it safe.

Works Cited

Donohue, Julie M. "A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs NEJM." www.nejm.org. New England Journal of Medicine, 16 Aug. 2007. Web. 25 May 2015.

FDA "The Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising." The Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 12 Apr. 2013. Web. 25 May 2015.

Ventola, C. Lee. "Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising: Therapeutic or Toxic?" Pharmacy and Therapeutics. MediMedia USA, Inc., Oct. 2011. Web. 25 May 2015.

Young, Donna. "Report Criticizes FDA's Oversight of DTC Ads." www.ashp.org. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Jan. 2011. Web. 25 May 2015.