Beyond Rhetoric in Debates About the Ethics of Marketing Prescription Medicines to Consumers: The Importance of Vulnerability in People, Situations, and Relationships

Carter, Stacy M; Samuel, Gabrielle; Kerridge, Ian; Day, Richard O.; Ankeny, Rachel A.; Jordens, Christopher F. C.; Komesaroff, Paul A.

doi:10.1080/21507716.2010.482871

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This creates financial burdens for individuals and opportunity costs to society, and threatens the sustainability of the healthcare system. Direct-to-consumer advertising, which is more persuasive than informative,27 may undermine patient autonomy, especially for vulnerable people with health concerns or lower health literacy 2829…”

Section: Why Drug Promotion Is An Urgent Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical drug marketing criteria for the 21st century

Parker

Williams

Bero

2018

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Why Drug Promotion Is An Urgent Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical drug marketing criteria for the 21st century

Parker

Williams

Bero

2018

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a qualitative study, it was not our intention to recruit a representative sample of participants for interview or to generalize the findings. Rather, the aim of qualitative study is to approach problems naturalistically, investigate the experience of specific, contextualized individuals, and discover the range of (often complex) views and beliefs individuals may have, by allowing participants to respond on their own terms and provide explanations (Carter et al 2010). Qualitative techniques, whilst sacrificing statistical representativeness, can provide deeper and more original understanding of a complex issue (Carter et al 2010) and, in this instance, of specific individuals within this often neglected population.…”

Section: Exploring Ethics On the Ground: Interviews With Relativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, the aim of qualitative study is to approach problems naturalistically, investigate the experience of specific, contextualized individuals, and discover the range of (often complex) views and beliefs individuals may have, by allowing participants to respond on their own terms and provide explanations (Carter et al 2010). Qualitative techniques, whilst sacrificing statistical representativeness, can provide deeper and more original understanding of a complex issue (Carter et al 2010) and, in this instance, of specific individuals within this often neglected population. Thus, whilst the experiences of our six participants are not generalizable, we will show how they serve to highlight new variables in the ethical debates about the use of fMRI for severely brain-injured individuals not discussed in the academic literature.…”

Section: Exploring Ethics On the Ground: Interviews With Relativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Values: Perspectives on a Neuroimaging Technology From Above and Within the Ethical Landscape

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we contribute to Bsociology in bioethics^and help clarify the range of ways sociological work can contribute to ethics scholarship. We do this using a case study of an innovative neurotechnology, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and its use to attempt to diagnose and communicate with severely brain-injured patients. We compare empirical data from interviews with relatives of patients who have a severe brain injury with perspectives from mainstream bioethics scholars. We use the notion of an Bethical landscape^as an analogy for the different ethical positions subjects can take-whereby a person's position relative to the landscape makes a difference to the way they experience and interact with it. We show that, in comparison to studying abstract ethics Bfrom above^the ethical landscape, which involves universal generalizations and global judgements, studying ethics empirically Bfrom the ground,^within the ethical landscape foregrounds a more plural and differentiated picture. We argue it is important not to treat empirical ethics as secondary to abstract ethics, to treat on-the-ground perspectives as useful only insofar as they can inform ethics from above. Rather, empirical perspectives can illuminate the plural vantage points in ethical judgments, highlight the Blived^nature of ethical reasoning, and point to all ethical vantage points as being significant. This is of epistemic importance to normative ethics, since researchers who pay attention to the various positions in and trajectories through the ethical landscape are unlikely to think about ethics in terms of abstract agency-as can happen with top-down ethics-or to elide agency with the agency of policymakers. Moreover, empirical perspectives may have transformative implications for people on the ground, especially where focus on the potential harms and benefits they face brings their experiences and interests to the forefront of ethical and policy discussion.

show abstract

Ethical and epistemic issues in direct-to-consumer drug advertising: where is patient agency?

Womack

2013

Med Health Care and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arguments for and against direct-to-consumer drug advertising (DTCA) center on two issues: (1) the epistemic effects on patients through access to information provided by the ads; and (2) the effects of such information on patients' abilities to make good choices in the healthcare marketplace. Advocates argue that DTCA provides useful information for patients as consumers, including information connecting symptoms to particular medical conditions, information about new drug therapies for those conditions. Opponents of DTCA point out substantial omissions in information provided by the ads and argue that the framing of the ads may mislead patients about the indications, uses, and effectiveness of the drugs advertised. They also suggest that DTCA has a number of potentially negative effects on the doctor-patient relationship. The standard arguments appear to assume a simplistic correlation-more information means more agency for patients. However, empirical studies on medical decision making suggest that this relationship is much more complex and nuanced. I examine recent research on ways in which patients are vulnerable with respect to DTCA. In order to address the complex issues of information acquisition and consumer decision-making in the health care marketplace, the focus should not be simply on what information patients need in order to make medical decisions, but also on the conditions under which patients actually are able to make medical decisions requiring complex medication information. This requires examining both the cognitive limitations of patients with respect to drug information and investigating patients' preferences and needs in a variety of medical contexts.

show abstract

Beyond Rhetoric in Debates About the Ethics of Marketing Prescription Medicines to Consumers: The Importance of Vulnerability in People, Situations, and Relationships

Abstract: Background This article examines community responses to the marketing of prescription medicines. Historically, debates about such marketing have focused on alleged unscrupulousness of pharmaceutical companies and on the quality of information provided.

Cited by 4 publications

References 37 publications

Ethical drug marketing criteria for the 21st century

Ethical drug marketing criteria for the 21st century

Relative Values: Perspectives on a Neuroimaging Technology From Above and Within the Ethical Landscape

Ethical and epistemic issues in direct-to-consumer drug advertising: where is patient agency?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About