- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Messages
- 988
- Reaction score
- 5
Hi folks
This article was in yesterday's Toronto Star - the most highly-distributed newspaper in Canada.
It discusses the MD viewpoint on why pharmacists should not get "prescribing rights" (which at the moment mean extending prescriptions, changing medications, etc.). I don't really have an opinion in the matter (not my turf) but what I found shocking was that the MD being interviewed (Pres of the Ontario Assoc of Meds) used an eye condition to cite why pharamacists shouldn't "prescribe".
"We spend hours and years learning those skills," Arnold said of the training that goes into proper diagnostic technique. "And I'm not sure that it's just so easy for a pharmacist to pick that up," he said.
Arnold also questioned the term "minor" in reference to illnesses, saying things that look insignificant can escalate to dangerous diseases.
An optic ailment that may look like simple pink eye – something a pharmacist might presumably diagnose – could really be the first blossoming of something much worse, he said.
The early stages of glaucoma, for instance, resemble pink eye, he said. "And acute glaucoma could involve blindness in two days."
Why is this ridiculous? Because we've all (OMDs included) encountered COUNTLESS examples of family docs prescribing gentamycin for a pink eye for a week that doesn't heal, only to have the patient sent in to ophthalmology to discover the patient has iritis (or HZ, or what have you, but NOT pink eye). I know. I took these cases in the ophthalmology practice where I worked. I'm further certain that unless this Dr. Arnold himself is an ophthalmologist, he has never diagnosed glaucoma before (and doesn't know how to).
It's just ridiculous that in the fight with pharmacist-precribing, they use an ailment against pharmacists that they (the "average" MD) don't themselves know how to treat.
Ridiculous right?
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/540922
This article was in yesterday's Toronto Star - the most highly-distributed newspaper in Canada.
It discusses the MD viewpoint on why pharmacists should not get "prescribing rights" (which at the moment mean extending prescriptions, changing medications, etc.). I don't really have an opinion in the matter (not my turf) but what I found shocking was that the MD being interviewed (Pres of the Ontario Assoc of Meds) used an eye condition to cite why pharamacists shouldn't "prescribe".
"We spend hours and years learning those skills," Arnold said of the training that goes into proper diagnostic technique. "And I'm not sure that it's just so easy for a pharmacist to pick that up," he said.
Arnold also questioned the term "minor" in reference to illnesses, saying things that look insignificant can escalate to dangerous diseases.
An optic ailment that may look like simple pink eye – something a pharmacist might presumably diagnose – could really be the first blossoming of something much worse, he said.
The early stages of glaucoma, for instance, resemble pink eye, he said. "And acute glaucoma could involve blindness in two days."
Why is this ridiculous? Because we've all (OMDs included) encountered COUNTLESS examples of family docs prescribing gentamycin for a pink eye for a week that doesn't heal, only to have the patient sent in to ophthalmology to discover the patient has iritis (or HZ, or what have you, but NOT pink eye). I know. I took these cases in the ophthalmology practice where I worked. I'm further certain that unless this Dr. Arnold himself is an ophthalmologist, he has never diagnosed glaucoma before (and doesn't know how to).
It's just ridiculous that in the fight with pharmacist-precribing, they use an ailment against pharmacists that they (the "average" MD) don't themselves know how to treat.
Ridiculous right?
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/540922
begin!
