首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Bioethical Inquiry >Is banning direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicine justified paternalism?
【24h】

Is banning direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicine justified paternalism?

机译:禁止直接向消费​​者投放处方药广告是合理的家长式服务吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:新西兰是世界上两个允许直接面向消费者宣传处方药(DTCA-PM)的经合组织国家之一。近年来,这类活动的增加导致大量宣传药品的分配量成比例增加。由于担心对医疗保健消费者和公共医疗保健系统的潜在危害,促使医学界呼吁禁止DTCA-PM,这是保护公众利益的最佳方法。但是,这种全面禁止也会干扰公众的信息访问权。本文将探讨在今天的新西兰背景下,禁止DTCA-PM是否构成家长式的合理形式。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号