Celebrities Advertising Prescription Drugs
Pharmaceutical Companies Use Celebrities in Ad Campaigns
Apr 30, 2009
Most people have seen those commercials on TV where a familiar celebrity shares their story of how they were suffering from a treatable disease and how their lives have dramatically improved once they began taking this new and wonderful drug. But how do these commercials effect the average person with a similar condition? Are they helpful or harmful?
The Pros of Having Celebrities Endorse Drugs
The key argument that pharmaceutical companies use when defending their stance for actively recruiting and using well-known celebrity spokespeople for their products is that people are more inclined to seek medical attention for a condition if they view a famous person endorsing a drug. They assume that the general public feels a kind of trustworthiness in regards to the celebrity, which lends them an air of importance in relation to the public's health and well-being as a whole. The drug companies also hope that by putting a familiar face on the drug, people will be more likely to get screened for treatable conditions and see their doctor for regular checkups.
The Cons of Using Celebrities as Prescription Drug Spokespeople
In many cases, name brand drug companies can afford to hire recognizable celebrities for their product endorsements primarily because they cost the average person more than their generic counterparts. Therefore, these big drug companies can afford to hire and pay celebrities to push their product, whereas a generic brand would not have that kind of financial capability.
But just because Sally Field or Marcia Cross endorse a drug company's product, does not necessarily mean it's a better product for consumers. According to a recent article in the Consumer Reports blog, Boniva, the drug manufactured by Roche and GlaxoSmithKline and endorsed by Sally Field, can cost up to ten times more than a similar drug, Fosamax and its generic version, Alendronate, and is shown to be no more effective in the treatment of osteoporosis. Yet, it remains one of the most popular prescription drugs prescribed in 2007, in part due to its clever advertising campaign.
But what about the ethical ramifications? Clearly every drug comes with its own laundry list of side effects and if the sole deciding factor on whether a patient takes a generic drug or a well-advertised one is the feeling of recognition and trust tied to the specific endorsing celebrity, the patient can end up suffering unnecessary side effects and even getting less than optimal treatment. A patient's health can ultimately be put at risk when they place the importance of celebrity appeal over smart medical advice.
While it is legal for celebrities to declare on the talk show circuits and in magazines how wonderful and useful the particular drug they are pitching is, the information they are giving may not be accurate. Even though pharmaceutical companies face strict guidelines when advertising their drugs to the public, there is little regulation when the endorsing celebrity pitches it on their own.
Bottom line is that patients need to discuss their concerns and health issues with their doctor to formulate the best course of actions. After all, celebrities are not doctors, even if they play one on TV.
Sources:
Kopf Hirsh, Jamie "Sally Field and Boniva: Great spokeswoman, misleading ad" Consumer Reports. April 28, 2009. http://tinyurl.com/cvwluh. April 30, 2009.
 |
 |
