You are to decide if direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs is ethical. Does the advertising lead to self-diagnosis or take advantage of someone’s hope for a cure? If you decide that the direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals is ethical, why is the U.S. and New Zealand the only two developed countries that allow it? Whether you decide the advertising is ethical or unethical, argue your case from a deontological point of view. That means that you may use and apply Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawl’s principles of justice, or Nozick’s concepts of justice. Remember, a deontological approach mandates that one’s duty is to do what is morally right and to avoid what is morally wrong, regardless of the consequences. In arguing your case, assume that you are writing for a general audience, and write in such a way as to try to convince your readers that you are correct in your moral judgment. To do this you will have to present and develop your arguments along one or more of the deontological approaches. After presenting your initial argument, consider at least one argument on the other side. This antithetical argument may be either deontological or utility. I want to argue that it is ethical as long as the consumers are educated on the medication totally including effects, side effects and alternative medications or remedies for said condition. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071087/ http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/ http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/#pro_con http://www.medrants.com/archives/5899
