According to an article in the LaTimes dated October 5th, the FDA is considering creating a new classification of drugs called "behind the counter" drugs which only require a chat with a pharmacist rather than a trip to the doctor.
Wait, what?
So the United States Food and Drug Administration is going to cut out the gatekeepers of certain medications, just for the consumer's convenience sake?
This is the worst idea I've ever heard. It appears the pharmaceutical companies have lobbied hard enough and are now taking a new approach -- direct to consumer advertising.
Sure, there are plenty of ads for prescription drugs now -- but they all say "ask your doctor if this drug is right for you." Do you know why? Because doctors know better than regular people. They have advanced degrees, many of them are board certified and they understand how your individual history will factor into putting potentially harmful chemicals in your body.
The implications for hospitals could be of course a decrease in patients in the emergency room that use the hospital as their primary care provider. But of course how many new overdose victims will there be?
Sure doctors right now are in short supply and this would help tremendously with the patient load -- but it's not work risking the health of citizens. Self-medicating is a dangerous course and shouldn't be taken lightly.
Another question that is raised is where does product liability come into play? What if a customer gets a prescription they are allergic to? Who gets sued? The consulting pharmacist? The company that employs him? The drug manufacturer? All of them? With this question looming, drug companies and pharmacies may have consumers sign waivers -- creating a losing situation for the people the FDA is trying to help.
I understand the world we live in is not always conducive to doctors visits, but c'mon people IT'S YOUR HEALTH. You have it or you don't -- it's not something you play around with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would be afraid to start taking certain medications without a doctor's approval. I think this would be especially scary for people taking multiple drugs that may not mix well.
Wow - what is going on? How is this a good idea? Do you know what kinds of drugs these are? Are they really potent types of drugs? I suppose you can over medicate on just about anything, but this seems a little over the top. This is sure the opposite of one of my recent experiences. I could not get regular sudafed unless I walked up to the counter and gave my driver's license to a pharmacy worker. People can use sudafed to make meth. If a simple decongestant medication that used to be very easy to get a hold of is now being regulated this way, what could be done with more serious medications in the hands of people who do not have essential medical knowledge?
I don't think this is neccesarily a bad thing. Especially if you take some time to think about it.
Actually, this is something that has already happened, just on a smaller scale. For instance codeine based cough syrup is available by chatting with the pharmacist and then signing off on it.
And if you think about it, many drugs that are on the shelf now used to be available only through a doctors prescription.
Certain women's medications for common, easily diagnosed problems used to be available only through a doctors visit. It was a total waste of time and money to go to the doctor.
This might actually be helpful to people who don't have the means to go to the doctor. Sure the best thing would be to consult a doctor. But if you can't afford to go, and you know you are having an easily identifiable illness it might save you in more ways than one.
It is funny to see all the medical lobbies struggle for power at the Georgia Capitol. Doctors do want ALL the power: they don't want anyone else writing scripts--especially nurses.
Nurses don't want the midwives to have any medical rights.
Ophthalmologists hate the optometrists.
Pharmacists are a group unto themselves.
It is one giant turf war with lobbyists, agendas, and money--all trying to convince our "government" to make the playing field more advantageous for their group.
Post a Comment