Opposing Viewpoints: The Right Prescription

[CaffeinatedSquirrel]

Please discuss!

A Prescription for No More Prescriptions

A Prescription for Safety

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Evisju7]

I just think it's funny that the PRO side is a pharmacist. Seems biased.

 

[Eddie Marcus]

Evisju7, I don't consider the pro-prescription commentary to be biased in favor of prescriptions because the writer is a pharmacist, at least not financially or professionally so. Eliminating most prescriptions would be a great boon to the pharmacists: practicing their profession as they were well educated to do, providing deep and counting advice, serving as a critical part of the patient care process as opposed to what they mostly do now, which is serve (very critically so) as a professional whose job it is make medications available through the incomprehensible and outfight insanity of bureaucratic medicine. Instead of wasting their talent, dedication and education to overcome the medical bureaucracy, I suggest we eliminate as much of the medical bureaucracy as possible, including prescriptions and most insurance, and then bring the pharmacists back into their rightful position of expertise.

I am the writer of the "end-prescriptions" article, by the way.

 

[Evisju7]

Evisju7, I don't consider the pro-prescription commentary to be biased in favor of prescriptions because the writer is a pharmacist, at least not financially or professionally so. Eliminating most prescriptions would be a great boon to the pharmacists: practicing their profession as they were well educated to do, providing deep and counting advice, serving as a critical part of the patient care process as opposed to what they mostly do now, which is serve (very critically so) as a professional whose job it is make medications available through the incomprehensible and outfight insanity of bureaucratic medicine. Instead of wasting their talent, dedication and education to overcome the medical bureaucracy, I suggest we eliminate as much of the medical bureaucracy as possible, including prescriptions and most insurance, and then bring the pharmacists back into their rightful position of expertise.

I am the writer of the "end-prescriptions" article, by the way.

That's a very good point (I've always thought pharmacists are not fully exhibiting their education). I would assume there would be an initial transitional phase that would be difficult for the industry. Most pharmacists are employed by actual pharmacies. The end is a wonderful goal, but unless done in a specific manner, many might lose their jobs initially. Theoretically sound, but many gradual steps seem to be needed to make it practical.

I'm not very familiar with this field so I'm making assumptions, but that seems like the most logical progression of such a radical change.

Congratulations on the article btw. So cool!

 

[DesertPT]

I find the concluding statement "A layperson browsing the internet will not be able to differentiate between sound medicine and an ad for snake oil" to be ridiculous. This is such a broad, sweeping, and somewhat patronizing statement. Does the author really believe that physicians and pharmacists are the only people capable of discovering that taking a loratadine is a safe and effective way to get relief from an allergy attack, and that buying a bottle of Asea instead just means you got suckered into spending $40 on a bottle of salt water? OTC medications have dosing instructions and warnings on them that the majority of people follow. WebMD and Mayo Clinic contain very legitimate information that millions of people rely on. Hell, do you think doctors don't Google things frequently. Of course there are people who can't handle taking OTC drugs safely. That doesn't mean we jump to the conclusion that no "layperson", educated or otherwise, is capable of informing his own decisions about his health. This person needs to come of their ivory tower and re-write this viewpoint with more reasonable language. Alcohol kills more people every year than any prescription or OTC drug does, but we don't have psychiatrists screen people to see who can be trusted to drink responsibly and who can't.

 

[Evisju7]

I find the concluding statement "A layperson browsing the internet will not be able to differentiate between sound medicine and an ad for snake oil" to be ridiculous. This is such a broad, sweeping, and somewhat patronizing statement. Does the author really believe that physicians and pharmacists are the only people capable of discovering that taking a loratadine is a safe and effective way to get relief from an allergy attack, and that buy a bottle of Asea instead just means you got suckered into spending $40 on a bottle of salt water. This person needs to come of their ivory tower and re-write this viewpoint with more reasonable language.

Some people can and do have an understanding of the medication they're taking, but from what I've seen, many do not. They just take whatever is prescribed and trust it's good for them, often not even knowing the name. Perhaps expecting some accountability on the the patient's end would be a good thing. Right now the only requirement is to drop money, take pills, and complain about the side effects.

Note that I'm writing this from a layperson/patient perspective. Obviously I'm slightly more interested in medicine than your average joe, but I am, at the end of the day, your average joe-ett. It's frustrating to me that people don't take more responsibility for what goes into their bodies.

 

[DesertPT]

Some people can and do have an understanding of the medication they're taking, but from what I've seen, many do not. They just take whatever is prescribed and trust it's good for them, often not even knowing the name. Perhaps expecting some accountability on the the patient's end would be a good thing. Right now the only requirement is to drop money, take pills, and complain about the side effects.

No doubt. My point is that this article doesn't even acknowledge the fact that millions of people are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions about what medications to take. The research that doctors and pharmacists base their decisions on is all freely accessible in today's day and age. Those like you and I who are capable of reading and understanding of it are not the same as those who can't. The issues are much more complicated than this article makes them seem. The author seems to favor gearing the system toward the slowest cog and making everyone else just have to deal with it.

 

[Evisju7]

No doubt. My point is that this article doesn't even acknowledge the fact that millions of people are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions about what medications to take. The research that doctors and pharmacists base their decisions on is all freely accessible in today's day and age. Those like you and I who are capable of reading and understanding of it are not the same as those who can't. The issues are much more complicated than this article makes them seem. The author seems to favor gearing the system toward the slowest cog and making everyone else just have to deal with it.

Alright, we're on the same page. Help should be available to those who need it.. but not forced. I still think the transition would be VERY difficult and impractical, but I like the theory

 

[Psai]

Does that md even see patients? He definitely overestimates the power of Google and the general level of intelligence of the American population. One of the greatest advances in medicine has been vaccinations. People in poor countries die from diseases that we have the luxury to avoid and yet we have all these college educated idiots running around not vaccinating their kids. A little information with no understanding is a recipe for disaster. The arguments about efficiency and liberty make no sense. We are here to serve the public and keep them safe and healthy by knowing things that they don't. A ten minute Internet search does not even come close to replacing years of rigorous education

 

[Eddie Marcus]

Beware Psai---the philosophy you appear to be espousing is the philosophy of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and so many other tyrants who were so sure they knew what was best for everybody that they compelled everyone to obey, and those that did not, they killed off, so as to prevent such people from infecting others. There is no more powerful tool than an idea, and no more evil a tool than an evil idea.

We are not here to serve the public. We are here to serve the individual patient that sits before us in our exam room. That individual is our duty. The "public" is a vapid concept derived from groupthink--a collectivist concept that obviates the central focus of our purpose--the individual human being and replaces it with the concept of the "greater good"-- a "greater good" of course determined by and defined by the political elite.

The government as well as private schools have taught groupthink. It is very difficult to overcome this brainwashing... The first thing to do is recognize that it is there, it has obtained at least a foothold in most everybody. Part of the instillation of collective groupthink involves inculcating narcissism in those in power. Doctors must NEVER be narcissistic-- which in this case means thinking we are so much better and smarter than everyone that we should be empowered with the ability to compel.

It is not our job to compel avoidance of disaster by telling people that they must come to us. It is our job to persuade our patients, offer advice, education, encouragement and love.

 

[DesertPT]

Beware Psai---the philosophy you appear to be espousing is the philosophy of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and so many other tyrants who were so sure they knew what was best for everybody that they compelled everyone to obey, and those that did not, they killed off, so as to prevent such people from infecting others. There is no more powerful tool than an idea, and no more evil a tool than an evil idea.

We are not here to serve the public. We are here to serve the individual patient that sits before us in our exam room. That individual is our duty. The "public" is a vapid concept derived from groupthink--a collectivist concept that obviates the central focus of our purpose--the individual human being and replaces it with the concept of the "greater good"-- a "greater good" of course determined by and defined by the political elite.

The government as well as private schools have taught groupthink. It is very difficult to overcome this brainwashing... The first thing to do is recognize that it is there, it has obtained at least a foothold in most everybody. Part of the instillation of collective groupthink involves inculcating narcissism in those in power. Doctors must NEVER be narcissistic-- which in this case means thinking we are so much better and smarter than everyone that we should be empowered with the ability to compel.

It is not our job to compel avoidance of disaster by telling people that they must come to us. It is our job to persuade our patients, offer advice, education, encouragement and love.

Thank you for a truly excellent post.