Is banning direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicine justified paternalism?
New Zealand is one of two OECD countries in the world where direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicine (DTCA-PM) is permitted. Increase in such activity in recent years has resulted in a disproportionate increase in dispensary volume of heavily advertised medicines. Concern for the potential harm to healthcare consumers and the public healthcare system has prompted the medical profession to call for a ban on DTCA-PM as the best way of protecting the public interest. Such blanket prohibition however also interferes with the public's right of access to information. This paper will examine if banning DTCA-PM would constitute a justified form of paternalism in the context of today's New Zealand.
Lau
Yvonne
Y
D022126:Access to Information / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D000329:Advertising / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004345:Drug Industry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D007880:Legislation, Drug; D009520:New Zealand; D026706:Paternalism; D004364:Pharmaceutical Preparations
D004364:Pharmaceutical Preparations