Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs has been a consistent controversial topic extensively debated in scholarly work by many authors. This thesis compares the arguments made by the proponents and opponents of this debate and comes to a conclusion that there is less justification in claims that DTCA benefits society. The thesis goes further in assessing the benefits from normative ethical principles, including using Rawls difference principle as a guide, to evaluate which side of the debate conforms more logically along the teachings of ethical philosophy. At the end it is apparent that the least advantaged members of society do not benefit from this aggressive marketing strategy. It concludes that the pharmaceutical industry makes exaggerated claims of providing the public increased autonomy when, in reality, it is trying to further its own cause of making huge profits for its shareholders. This thesis also reaches the conclusion that the industry uses patients as a means to achieve its own end, that end being unreasonable levels of profit.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:liu-70014 |
| Date | January 2011 |
| Creators | Chini, Farrah |
| Publisher | Linköpings universitet, Centrum för tillämpad etik |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds