Anda di halaman 1dari 2

BIOL1090 Taking Sides Assignment 3 Name: Sydney Klingler Course: BIOL-1090-051-Sp14 Book: Biology 1090, Human Biology (Salt

Lake Community College edition) Taking Sides Readings Issue number: 3 Does Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising Enhance Patient Choice? 1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side: Paul Antony, author of the Yes side and Chief Medical Officer of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, argues that direct-to-consumer advertising enhances patient use of medications due to an increase in patient education on medical conditions, medication regimens, and the need for individuals to be involved in caring for their health. 2. Author and major thesis of the No side: Authors of the No side, physicians David A. Kessler and Douglas A. Levy, assert that direct-toconsumer advertising causes patients to spend money on unnecessary medicines or avoid healthy behaviors. 3. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side. Two facts the Yes side presents to support the use of direct-to-consumer drug advertisements are: (1) it is required for direct-to-consumer drug advertisements that are to be televised to be reviewed by the Federal Drug Administration before their first use, and (2) direct-to-consumer drug advertisements are shown to increase awareness of diseases the medications are used to treat. Two from the No side, to advocate for the end of direct-to-consumer medication advertisements, are: (1) the amount of money spent on drug advertisements nearly doubled over a four year period, with a focus on medications that do not treat the conditions with the highest casualty amount, and (2) consumers are often confused about the true benefits, purposes, and risks of drugs they learn of from advertisements. 4. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side. The following are to opinions the Yes side states for their cause: (1) the public and medical communities require PhRMA to go beyond what is legally required when advertising medications, and (2) conditions a medication could treat, as well as the risks it bears, are to be made known to patients through direct-to-consumer drug advertising. Evidenced by the following, the No side does the same when they state: (1) direct-to-consumer drug advertisements are disturbing in their lack of clarity, and (2) to be correctly used, the process of direct-to-consumer medication advertisements needs to aid in the diagnosis of conditions with high mortality rate more than less serious conditions. 5. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can. The Yes side potentially invalidates itself by failing to acknowledge how direct-to-consumer medication advertisements matter to them. I believe, as well as researchers as evidenced by point that these advertisements are often emotionally founded, that some emotional

connection is necessary to see sincerity amidst a sea of statistics, and this side severely lacked in this aspect of the presentation of their ideas. Where the No side stated their personal experience with the issue, the Yes side made a point to avoid any such thing; rather, this side presented facts, studies, and statistics one after the other, and failed to acknowledge how this issue would affect his job, life, or self in any waythough I do not know how he could have done that without further discrediting his argument, so I understand why he did not, but if he had included this information in a well-presented manner, it could have won over all who heard his side of the issue. 6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can. The No side lacks validity when it makes bold statementsthough they correlate with the far less intensely stated studies surrounding themabout what is right and what is unsatisfactory in relation to the issue of direct-to-consumer advertisements. 7. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his thesis? Why? At this moment, I think that the most empirically impressive argument made regarding this issue was from the Yes side due to the presentation of ideas with statistical data and results of research studies. Emotion was kept out of the presentation of ideas for the most part, enhancing the logos of the Yes sides ideas. 8. Are there any reasons to believe the authors are biased? If so, why would they have these biases? The writers are clearly biased, as evidenced by their very clear sides of the argument, and this could be caused for numerous reasons. The author of the Yes side is the Chief Medical Officer of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and has devoted much of his life to pharmaceutical work, as well as makes his living from that knowledge. Authors of the No side, physicians who experience patient response to direct-to-consumer drug advertisements, are likely biased because they witness firsthand how patients approach medical care when advertisements have played a role in the search for treatment. 9. Which side do you feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the material in these articles? Why? After analyzing the articles, the side I believe to be most correct is the No side. This did not come as a surprise to me because my immediate response to the issue title was uh, DUH! Because of this analysis, I have come to recognize that there are people with good intentions advocating for the wholesome, healthful use of direct-to-consumer drug advertisements, but they do not personally witness the issues associated with their work like the physicians of the No side do. I felt the No side to be the most correct due to the presentation of ideas from a primary source, but I do recognize that the statistics of the Yes side bear some validity because of the great expanse of land the studies may have covered.