Some public health advocates have become concerned that directly advertising prescription drugs to consumers is likely to cause some patients to pursue certain medications that may be inappropriate for their individual health situation. However, marketing to consumers should not be limited as long as physicians also continue to be educated about such medications, because a physician's prescription is still required in order for patients to obtain these drugs.
Which of the following facts would most directly address the concern articulated by the public health advocates?
-Conclusion: Marketing to consumers need not be limited if physicians continue to be educated about the medications. Premise: The medication can't be obtained without a physician's prescription. The question is essentially asking for something that would strengthen this argument.
A) After a certain number of years, prescription drugs lose patent protection and other companies can then manufacture and market generic forms of the drugs. *Patent protection and production of generic drugs are out of scope.
B) Consumers can now find technical drug information on the Internet, information that previously would have been available only to physicians.*Even if patients can access more information, they would still need a prescription.
C) Physicians are also exposed to prescription drug advertisements that are directed toward consumers. *Exposure to the advertisements doesn't mean they are influenced enough to prescribe the drugs.
D) Physicians are not susceptible to pressure from patients in determining appropriate courses of treatment. *Patients misinformed by advertisements cannot access the drugs by influencing their physicians (the ultimate authority on the prescription).
E) Fewer than 15% of patients are likely to remember and ask by name for specific drugs that they see advertised in magazines or on television.*A physician's approval is still required for the few that actually remember to ask for specific drugs by name.