In one study a group viewed actual drug ads, and nearly two-thirds of the group overestimated the drug effectiveness: "They believed it was 10 times more effective than it actually was"! But another group was shown ads with information clearly presented in a simple "drug-facts box." Three-quarters of this group "correctly assessed the actual benefits of the treatment."
This study shows us a lot about how presentation of evidence can affect an argument. It appears that different arrangements of the same evidence can lead the audience to very different conclusions. It also suggests an interesting research topic for Unit 3. How should drug advertisements be regulated? Should they be designed to educate patients, or to simply sell product?
I think that drug advertisements should be designed strictly to educate the patients. If a patient needs x drug for a given condition, then you would assume one would want to have a clear a concise understanding of the effects and side effects it can have when taken. The fact that some drug advertisements are possibly replacing crucial information for that of something they may help sell the drug I find to be somewhat unethical.
ReplyDeleteWhen dealing with something as severe as drugs and how they can improve or benefits one health, the truth is somewhat necessary.
In a perfect world drug companies would design all there ads purely for the education of patients, but we all know that this probably won't be the case as they wouldn't be paying for TV air time just for public education for a pharmaceutical. At the end of the day, it is an ad and ads are geared to persuade individuals to buy a product. Drug ads should be viewed in the same way and not as source of unbiased information about the effects of the drug.
ReplyDelete