Whether to legalise direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), the authorised advertising of prescription drugs direct to the consumer, within the European Union (EU) is often discussed. But how would allowing DTCA help EU governments looking for solutions to rising costs, rising patient expectations, loss of public confidence and ageing populations? This poster summarises the main arguments for and against the EU legalising DTCA. OBJECTIVES: To explore the arguments for and against allowing the use of DTCA in EU states; to determine the validity of the propounded arguments, by evaluating actual data which highlights the effects of introducing DTCA in the US and New Zealand. METHODS: Using PubMed and a within-literature search, a literature review of published information on the arguments for and against DTCA, and DTCA’s associated costs was undertaken. RESULTS: Advocates believe DTCA will enable the pharmaceutical industry to significantly improve the effectiveness of its marketing campaigns. DTCA’s opponents argue that healthcare providers’ ability to ration healthcare based on clinical need will be destroyed. US data indicates that DTCA rose 38.5% in 1999 to $US1.8bn, whilst in New Zealand expenditure rose 47.1% in 2000 to $US21.5m. DTCA has caused US retail spending on prescriptions to soar. Yet in New Zealand DTCA is credited with improving awareness, choice and treatment of previously neglected conditions. CONCLUSIONS: DTCA’s ability to allow the pharmaceutical industry to connect with its ultimate consumers (patients) would lead to increased strains on European health systems. But, the increased awareness that DTCA will bring to currently neglected conditions (such as osteoarthritis in men) could lead to huge benefits to patients quality-of-lives and help refocus changing health systems towards patients needs. As such, DTCA could be part of the solution to Europe’s healthcare crisis, but its introduction will bring to EU states as many headaches as it solves.