Is "direct-to-consumer" prescription drug advertising socially irresponsible?

The simple answer to your question is yes. I actually trained to become a Pharmacy Technician, thinking that I would be part of people getting better by working in the medical field, even in such a peripherial role. However, I've come to loath the prescription drug industry, as a lot of what they do is done more to make a buck than to help anybody.

Take, for example, the study that came up about statins. They produced a hybrid statin that combined two statin drugs (Vytorin, in case you're wondering), claiming that it was more effective because it "targeted the two leading causes" of high blood pressure. However, studies came out recently that prove that there was little or no benefit from the pairing of these two. Just before these results were released to the general public, the CEO of the company unloaded a fortune in stock options, which is technically bad trading practice, and very illegal.

The *REAL* reason they combined the two statin drugs is a simple one. What most people don't know, is that when a drug comes out, the manufacturer of that company has a contract of exclusivity that protects it from being produced as a generic for a number of years. By creating Vytorin, they technically gave these drugs another term of exclucivity, during which they can charge astronomical prices for their drug, instead of people being able to buy a "theraputic substitute" (generic) for a fraction of the price.

So, in short, I am disgusted with the drug industry so much so that I refuse to use the certification I have. I would rather work idiot jobs than help perpetrate this greed.

You are receiving fine impulse and know there is something seeming about what the "Industry" is doing and pick up that there is something truly wrong, even if you don't have your finger on documents, for you know it in your gut...

The Industry uses two intentions, either of which in effect is irresponsible: one, cynical convenience; and the other, naive deception -- which of these two naive decepton is considerably sickening.

The first is a sordid business ploy enacted without conscience to its consequences, and this, to not good ends; and the second -- naive deception -- a presupposition on the habit in human nature to be unsuspecting, to trust and thus rely on its supposed betters who they believe will carry properly.

Nothing is there in human nature regarding trust improper nor indication of weakness but only healthy neutrality.

But -- the Devil will have Its way.

I mean, what parent would give something to his or her child knowing that given the child has no cause to fear the parent, the little one will accept what's given him or her with nothing less than full trust in the parent?

Such perversion of this as demonstrated by the Industry, however -- pharmaceutical or otherwise -- evidences deviance on the first count and on the second, shame in that they should dare think it all up and then employ it in the first place and then find it just fine and proper -- and for monetary reasons.

'That' is sick on the part of any Industry. And we have read or even seen accounts of this repeated time and again throughout the 20th Century, in meat-packing industries to services industries (direct-to-consumer) to mortgages and banking industries.

One need not look too deeply to observe and feel how broken is the services industry -- disconnects, no human being on the other end of the phone, bureaucratic discernments that fall to no resolutions, call transfers, default hang-ups, ad infinitum.

I forget the name of the author who wrote an account of the Chicago meat factories during the early 20th Century. Once the authorities got wind of this, a whole new device had to be instituted to prevent it from ever occurring again, for the practices had been the norm throughout the country. And later came heavy regulation by the U.S. government to avert a food poisoning pandemic due to atrocious sanitation and outrageously poor aseptic practices.

These industries know they are doing wrong and one has to wonder just what is in their DNAs that they cannot see the perversity in their practices. Others don't prefer to see that what they do could be esteemed wrong and for which there is some crucial questions needing asked. 'Very strange and saddening.

What you are perceiving takes us to classic philosophy actually: you are beholding in Industry at large underlying principles on propriety being wholly dismissed. The person above who bailed out of the pharmacy tech field is on point. 'That is just what it takes, in addition to storm-trooping the executive and legislative branches with as equal ferocity as lobbyists demonstrate to their good-ol' boys network on Capitol Hill.

It used to be illegal. to advertise them of TV and for good reason. The consumer is targeted to encourage them to pressure their doctors to prescribe a particular drug. The drug companies also offer all kinds of incentives to the doctors to "push' certain drugs. The reason for this is simple -- more profits for drug companies. Doing what's best for the patient seems to get lost under these scenarios.

i dont know about this event as as we werent informed about it in europe. yet i believe that despite lack of knowledge the public as well as the consumers have the right to know through adverts. a mis-informative drug advert i believe will be unethical. rather then the adverts themselves.

Yes, but I have to admit that sometimes, in a desperate situation, it can be handy!