The Misleading Truth About Pharmaceutical Advertisements
             Is a patient at liberty to diagnose his or her own affliction? If so, are they also qualified enough to know the right medication and take into consideration the drugs adverse effects? With the recent onset of direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs, this is becoming the case. In 1994, expenditures on direct to consumer advertisements were about twenty-five-million a year. By 1998 that figure changed to about 225 million (Sasich 2). Turn on the TV, there they are. Open your favorite magazine, there they are again. Listen to the radio, congratulations, you've found another ad for the latest prescription drug. Rush down to your local physician and life will be perfect, right? Do these advertisements have a place in healthcare, where they could be potentially dangerous? Although educating the public about treatment options is not a bad thing, these advertisements are misleading the public into unnecessary treatment.
             We first have to look at what an advertisement is intended to do: persuade. Advertisements for prescription medication are not only persuading the general public to get the treatment, they are telling them that they have the affliction. This is increasingly damaging in cases where the affliction is somewhat subjective, such as depression. I'm sure that every normal person has at least once in they're life felt sad or depressed. This does not mean that there is a problem that would require medication. But advertisements are telling them that they do. If a patient feels this way, take this, everything will be perfect and the patient will unquestionably feel happy. Take this pill and problems will disappear faster than a hamburger at Weight Watchers. This is not the case. Advertisements are not selling the remedy; they are selling the affliction, and promising that your life's problems can be whisked away in one convenie...