Two items-in brief

1. The discussions in last class about using 'overly thin' women in advertisements and how it escalates the issue of eating related disorders like anorexia etc. It made me think of how women are used in advertisements no matter what the product an immaterial of the products use for women. Example: The Axe deodorant ad (You wear axe; women see you (semi)naked and vice versa!)

Ethical question, why are under dressed women flaunted in these ads? Advertisements were once used to inform customers about the product and create awareness. Not anymore. Sexuality by itself is not a bad thing, but when its trivialized and women are stereotyped it makes me wonder how much have we evolved as a business and what progress have we made from the days of objectifying women.

2. It is common knowledge that pharmaceutical companies jump hoops to get drugs approved by the FDA. They are under the closest possible scrutiny by the FDA before their drugs move into the market after the 10 years they spend in the pipeline. Most of the time is devoted in testing for safety and effectiveness of the drug besides side effects of the drug. Hence two things that go on in this rigmarole fail to convince me on an ethical level. Why are the studies/research for side effects and safety funded by the company itself? Why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to release the findings of studies/research as late as 2 years after the drug hits the market, even if the findings suggest negative side effects?