The only reason that prescription meds are advertised in New Zealand (US and NZ are the only countries in the world that allow direct to consumer pharma marketing) was because the US strong-armed it into a trade agreement.
Industry funded patient information and the slippery slope to New Zealand
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2001072/
In New Zealand and the US, the only two developed countries that allow direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicines, opposition has grown steadily from both the public and doctors. New Zealand's health system is much closer to those in Europe than the US system. So what can we learn from its experience?
Rise of advertising
Unlike most other developed countries, New Zealand never enacted pre-emptive legislation to prevent direct to consumer advertising.
The adverts started appearing in the early 1990s, and steadily increased.
But the US Food and Drugs Administration relaxation of regulatory requirements for broadcast advertising in 1997, unleashed an explosion in both the US and New Zealand.
Last year drug companies spent over $5bn (£2.5bn; €3.6bn) on direct to consumer advertising in the US and tens of millions of dollars in New Zealand.
But looking now I'm also seeing "due to heavy lobbying by the pharma industry, including the US pharmaceutical companies" as to why it hasn't been shut down. But I stand corrected.
It sparked curiousity.
Now I'm thankful Australia had laws in place ahead of any pharma drama.