The trading of a product and the trading of a service as a commodity is the exact same thing.
Not a member yet?
Have a Facebook account?
Not a member yet?
Have a Facebook account?
Seņor Member Members don't see this ad. Sign up & get posting!
Despite perhaps a better and greater working knowledge of pharmaceuticals, modify (and verify), not prescribe.Originally Posted by Hutcherson
Like nurse practitioners, perhaps introduce a diploma that permits pharmacists, say, in hospitals (or in the community) to prescribe, with pay incentives. Naturally, enforcing safe practice and continuing education are issues.
No.2. Should people without a pharmacy degree be able to open up a Pharmacy?
*Sigh.*3. Should a Pharmacy be opened/ integrated within a supermarket?
As in liquor stores and grocery/supermarkets chains? Hell, no.
I'mma stalling till a graduation ceremony till I am awarded my PhD in economics, but I am fairly sure such an act would lead to anticompetitive practices and trading, if not in and of itself anticompetitive, and the "mom and pop" pharmacies/chemists would be driven to the recesses of the industry. Said "mom and pop" pharmacies would perhaps scrimp out a living by becoming a niche market.
As Australia's supermarkets are owned by different companies (e.g., Woolworths Limited, Wesfarmers), you wouldn't get a monopoly; instead, you'd get a oligopoly (as is the quite case with retail groceries and commercial banks). Jargonistic semantics aside, supermarkets would definitely heavily influence and determine the price of pharmaceuticals, which would be forever "fixed" (I use this awfully loosely) or fluctuate (clearly, due to market and inflationary pressures).
There is a stigma apropos "drugs" but only because idiots are idiots (are idiots are idiots) and the uninformed masses are uninformed masses.4. Should the SUSDP (The Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs & Poisons ) be changed to SUSMP (Medicines & Poisons) ? - I think it was changed due to the bad connotations of "drugs" as well other factors which I am currently unaware of. This changed officially on the 1st of July 2010 *sad face*.
I say stuff it; society should learn to know that recreational drugs are a subset of drugs (exogenous chemical substances that have a pharmacological/physiological effect), which are a subset of exogenous chemical substances, and science should not suffer fools.
Furthermore, citing but paraphrasing Paracelsus, "dose", or, citing Confucius and every culture in the history on the Earth, "moderation"; most every chemical has a lethal dosage, an LD50 (or other measures).
... ???Pharmacy News:
+ The Pharmacy Guild of Australia has welcomed the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) announcement of a national registration and accreditation system for health professionals. Nine health professions, including pharmacy, will be subject to the new system. “A national registration system will ensure that registered pharmacists can practise anywhere in Australia." This occurred on the 1st July 2010.
Prescribing drugs and national registration are fairly tangential, not normal, to each other.
I disagree.
You seriously underestimate pharmacists; and, not that it's conclusive evidence, a pharmacy degree is used as a stepping stone for those graduate-medical-program prospectives.
If you're mathematically/graphically minded, pharmacology occurs at an overlap of biochemistry, (o.) chemistry, and physiology. In order to study the effects of chemicals that act on living systems and constituents to effect a physiological different, you invariably must have knowledge of physiology; it's all integrated and, to spruik, you absolutely must sit in on a couple of PHAR lectures.
That said, I do agree with your no but on the basis that pharmacists do not necessarily have the ability to deal with rarer-than-common-ailment-and-illness diseases and as much clinical -- and importantly diagnostic -- experience.
Businesspeople.No - pcists are professionals and businessmen in this case.
And, if they're concerned about profits, they're really not. To their value, they tend to be afloat after the initial years.
I am reading "physicist".Lets not forget that everything behind the dispensary is a poison. Only a pcist should have access to purchasing, holding and distributing these or people will start dropping like flies.
Everything not behind the dispensary can be toxic.
There is a legislative arm.3. supermarket pharmacy? NO - this will happen though b/c we cant fight them. The community will suffer though.
If this "supermarket pharmacy" means the incorporation of pharmacists, their pharmacies, and supermarkets, then advice can still be readily dispensed and, as far as selling points go, "mom and pop" (independent) pharmacies do not necessarily a psychological/intangible benefit/good (that supermarkets don't).
If otherwise, some may frequent the odd "mom and pop" pharmacy but unless people aren't of the inclination to shop around and/or are attached to a business that provides better service, despite at a higher price for the same good, then one would still reasonably expect that business would be poor (or at least poorer before the supermarket-pharmacy oligopoly).
?
Er, yes but that's intrinsic to the meaning of trading and "products" and "services" being commodities, albeit of different varieties (material and immaterial); however, if you were to scratch the surface a little more, the exchange of goods and the exchange of services are different, and the psychology/neuroeconomics is different.
Oh, lookee, ma!
Joy.
Last edited by HugsNotDrugs; 05-01-11 at 10:49 PM.
Drop the bass. HYM did study Pharmacy for a bit, so he does know what a pharmacist knows etc haha.
1. should a pcist prescribe?
No - not enough knowledge on physiology etc. Pharmacology yes but thats not enough. Pcists cant examine and diagnose pts either so it follows that prescribing is a no no. I know pcists can recommend treatment for thrush and other minor things but they should refer if anything is a little out of the ordinary (for a pcist anyway). There is also a conflict of interest where a pcist may prescribe too many things just to sell more products and increase profits.
I disagree.
You seriously underestimate pharmacists; and, not that it's conclusive evidence, a pharmacy degree is used as a stepping stone for those graduate-medical-program prospectives.
If you're mathematically/graphically minded, pharmacology occurs at an overlap of biochemistry, (o.) chemistry, and physiology. In order to study the effects of chemicals that act on living systems and constituents to effect a physiological different, you invariably must have knowledge of physiology; it's all integrated and, to spruik, you absolutely must sit in on a couple of PHAR lectures.
I would have to agree with his point of view. The knowledge a Pharmacist had is no where near what a Doctor has, especially with mutiple medical conditions and those specific details to those medical conditions and their hospital results. 4 years and 6 years is a huge difference in a degree, and the content varies alot. Keep in mind, if a pharmacist changed a medication by a mg or, it could be fatal. So prescription rights could cause problems.
In comparison, physiology itself is not necessarily inadequate, but study of pathologies is rather limited. (For the not ordinary; the way pathology is visualized is that it's a subset of physiology, with overlaps with other disciplines.)
Pharmacists straight out of school (and their supervised year) should not prescribe.
As to the somewhat patronizing "keep in mind", well, yeah. It's also specious to state that 4 years and 6 years is a difference if the fundamental content is vastly different; the duration is thus moot.
As an observation, the University of Queensland is very diffffferent than other university's pharmacy schools.
1. Should a Pharmacist have the right to prescribe? Yes or No?
Yes. We have the knowledge of how to write a prescription legally better than any doctor (after all, we see 200+ a day), and more importantly we have better knowledge of drug interactions to know which medication would be best to prescribe. HOWEVER, there is the point that there are many ailments which we never learn about or cover in depth, and there are many conditions that present like other conditions that are treated entirely differently, so many mistakes could be made. I think in the case of long term history at our pharmacy, and for medications which we know a great deal about, encounter every day, know are relatively safe, and would have the capabilities to prescribe and supply (people on blood pressure medications, cholesterol medications, anti-depressants, asthma medications) - then it would be fine for us to be able to take say, a 6 month training course or something (much like the courses required for a pharmacist to become HMR accredited) and become a 'pharmacist practitioner' or something, and be able to prescribe certain things. Optometrists and Dentists can prescribe medicines while knowing nothing about pharmacology, kinetics, or even proper differential diagnosing. Nurse practitioners can prescribe while knowing nothing. I think it's about time pharmacists are allowed to prescribe, even if it is somewhat limited to a certain specific range of medicines. As far as I know, they already do this in a certain few countries to an extent (The UK for example) so I truly believe in the next 10 years this may be a potential avenue for pharmacy to head down.
2. Should people without a pharmacy degree be able to open up a Pharmacy?
Absolutely not. Pharmacy laws are very particular and specific, and the responsibility of owning a pharmacy should lie with a pharmacist and a pharmacist only, in the end no one else could properly run a pharmacy. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interest, consumer or owner, to have other people sticking their hands into what they don't understand.
3. Should a Pharmacy be opened/integrated within a supermarket?
Let's be brutally honest here for a second: Chemist Warehouse is a supermarket. It's tacky, cheap, and it sells household cleaning products. It's basically a Crazy Clarks with a pharmacy up the back, not far away from selling milk and bread. While I personally do not like the idea of supermarkets owning pharmacies or integrating with pharmacies, if it were to happen, I suppose the upside (sorry to be a cynic) would be it would drive places like CWH out of business, and it would also teach the Pharmacy Guild a thing or two about shooting every pharmacist in the foot every time they make an agreement with the government that benefits the owners and not the workers. They'll get their comeuppance whether it comes in the form of supermarket pharmacies or in the form of an actual pharmacist workers union.
Ultimately I do not see this happening however. It would potentially result in a 'monopoly' (I am aware there is more than 1 supermarket, but realistically Coles and Woolworths would be the ones to end up with an 80%+ market share if this happened) over medicines, which would not be a good thing to consumers. In fact the US state of North Dakota once published a study against the deregulation (allowing supermarkets and chains to operate pharmacies) of pharmacy because their research showed that they actually had cheaper medications than states which do allow chains and supermarkets (essentially every other US state, to my knowledge)
4. Should the SUSDP (The Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs & Poisons ) be changed to SUSMP (Medicines & Poisons)?
Frankly, I don't give a damn. This has already happened as of my reply to this old thread, but I don't see how it ever mattered. Tomato Tomato (which works a lot better if you say it aloud). Calling the same thing something else doesn't matter.
Finally, I think the national registration was a great idea, except for 1 thing - the laws are still different between states. What on earth were they thinking? They should sort out the discrepancies between state pharmacy law, make it national, and /then/ switch to national registration, this was a pharmacist can work anywhere nationally without any hickups, and in the long run this will help spread pharmacists evenly over the country preventing over and under supply (in theory).
All of my why. I typed a huge reply to this thread, clicked post after logging in - "you are not logged in"
>deletes all of my posts
>can't click back
I hate life.
(Let's try this a second time...)
1. Should a Pharmacist have the right to prescribe? Yes or No?
Yes, I think so. We have the knowledge of medications, and god knows we have the knowledge to write a prescription properly and legally, after all, we see 200+ a day, we can probably write a script better than a doctor can. The downside is that we don't have the knowledge to differential diagnose - at least with more major conditions. I think certain conditions should be completely left out since we don't have that knowledge, but the option should be for pharmacists to take a course (similar to the HMR course) to become a "Pharmacist Practitioner" where they would be able to prescribe a limited number of medications with a limited number of repeats - I think things like cholesterol medications, blood pressure medications, 1 repeat H2 antagonists and PPI's and also things like panadol osteo (some people get his cheaper on concession cards) and a few other things. Things we have the knowledge to diagnose and deal with, or with a little extra training would be able to. Most importantly I do still feel that if we were able to prescribe certainly a history of the patient being on that medication in the past would be necessary, and we couldn't prescribe twice in a row (eg. Mr Smith might have ran out of lipitor, so we just write a script for it, fill it, 1 repeat, he comes back, fills that one, but then we can't just write another one in a row and do that again - instead after that it would be time for him to see a doctor in case they wanted to review his medication etc.)
Certainly if optometrists and dentists can prescribe without knowing any pharmacology and if nurse practitioners can prescribe without knowing anything, then a pharmacist can prescribe something. It's already being trialed in some overseas countries (UK in particular)
2. Should people without a pharmacy degree be able to open up a Pharmacy?
Absolutely not. Pharmacy laws and regulations are extremely particular (and for good reason, because of the responsibility and such) - a pharmacist MUST be involved in the business side of the pharmacy, and no other person in my opinion would ever be qualified to run a pharmacy without holding a pharmacy degree.
3. Should a Pharmacy be opened/integrated within a supermarket?
I believe the US state of North Dakota is the only state to not have deregulated pharmacy, thus it is the only state without chains and supermarkets in pharmacy. While this came under fire multiple times, it has remained this way so far because the state did a study which showed that North Dakota also happens to have some of the cheapest prices (cheaper than neighboring south dakota, which does allow chains and supermarkets to own pharmacies) for medications, and I believe there is also evidence that having large chains and supermarkets also reduces their equivalent of QUM - counselling would drop, and so on.
Being brutally honest here however, Chemist Warehouse is basically a supermarket. It's cheap, it's tacky, and it sells household cleaning products even though it's supposed to be a pharmacy. It's basically a crazy clarks with a dispensary up back, only a few steps away from selling milk and bread. I suppose the benefit to having supermarkets is they would run CWH out of business (along with the rest of pharmacy)
Looking at it in a more cynical way, I suppose it would also be the guild getting their comeuppance, after years of cutting down and shooting pharmacists in the foot, and only negotiating to benefit owners, it would be about time their little golden club of rich men shattered. Whether in the future it comes in the form of an actual pharmacy workers union, or in the form of a botched agreement that results in deregulation of pharmacy, allowing chains and supermarkets, certainly there will be change to the face of pharmacy. In the end there are arguments for and against supermarket integration but I think I will always remain against, since supermarkets are driven only for profit and expansion, and in the end we will have Coles and Woolworths owning more than 80% of the market share of pharmacies, so it will basically be... a duopoly. You could say the competition would bring prices down but it's more likely to cut jobs, destroy small businesses, and by reducing the number of pharmacists to cut costs, ultimately harm QUM.
4. Should the SUSDP (The Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs & Poisons ) be changed to SUSMP (Medicines & Poisons)?
This has already happened, I don't think it mattered before it did, or now. Changing the name means nothing. It is still the same thing.
I typed a much longer and better response the first time, but I cant remember most of it and dont want to type so much again... so...
(Let's try this a second time...)
1. Should a Pharmacist have the right to prescribe? Yes or No?
Yes, I think so. We have the knowledge of medications, and god knows we have the knowledge to write a prescription properly and legally, after all, we see 200+ a day, we can probably write a script better than a doctor can. The downside is that we don't have the knowledge to differential diagnose - at least with more major conditions. I think certain conditions should be completely left out since we don't have that knowledge, but the option should be for pharmacists to take a course (similar to the HMR course) to become a "Pharmacist Practitioner" where they would be able to prescribe a limited number of medications with a limited number of repeats - I think things like cholesterol medications, blood pressure medications, 1 repeat H2 antagonists and PPI's and also things like panadol osteo (some people get his cheaper on concession cards) and a few other things. Things we have the knowledge to diagnose and deal with, or with a little extra training would be able to. Most importantly I do still feel that if we were able to prescribe certainly a history of the patient being on that medication in the past would be necessary, and we couldn't prescribe twice in a row (eg. Mr Smith might have ran out of lipitor, so we just write a script for it, fill it, 1 repeat, he comes back, fills that one, but then we can't just write another one in a row and do that again - instead after that it would be time for him to see a doctor in case they wanted to review his medication etc.)
Certainly if optometrists and dentists can prescribe without knowing any pharmacology and if nurse practitioners can prescribe without knowing anything, then a pharmacist can prescribe something. It's already being trialed in some overseas countries (UK in particular)
2. Should people without a pharmacy degree be able to open up a Pharmacy?
Absolutely not. Pharmacy laws and regulations are extremely particular (and for good reason, because of the responsibility and such) - a pharmacist MUST be involved in the business side of the pharmacy, and no other person in my opinion would ever be qualified to run a pharmacy without holding a pharmacy degree.
3. Should a Pharmacy be opened/integrated within a supermarket?
I believe the US state of North Dakota is the only state to not have deregulated pharmacy, thus it is the only state without chains and supermarkets in pharmacy. While this came under fire multiple times, it has remained this way so far because the state did a study which showed that North Dakota also happens to have some of the cheapest prices (cheaper than neighboring south dakota, which does allow chains and supermarkets to own pharmacies) for medications, and I believe there is also evidence that having large chains and supermarkets also reduces their equivalent of QUM - counselling would drop, and so on.
Being brutally honest here however, Chemist Warehouse is basically a supermarket. It's cheap, it's tacky, and it sells household cleaning products even though it's supposed to be a pharmacy. It's basically a crazy clarks with a dispensary up back, only a few steps away from selling milk and bread. I suppose the benefit to having supermarkets is they would run CWH out of business (along with the rest of pharmacy)
Looking at it in a more cynical way, I suppose it would also be the guild getting their comeuppance, after years of cutting down and shooting pharmacists in the foot, and only negotiating to benefit owners, it would be about time their little golden club of rich men shattered. Whether in the future it comes in the form of an actual pharmacy workers union, or in the form of a botched agreement that results in deregulation of pharmacy, allowing chains and supermarkets, certainly there will be change to the face of pharmacy. In the end there are arguments for and against supermarket integration but I think I will always remain against, since supermarkets are driven only for profit and expansion, and in the end we will have Coles and Woolworths owning more than 80% of the market share of pharmacies, so it will basically be... a duopoly. You could say the competition would bring prices down but it's more likely to cut jobs, destroy small businesses, and by reducing the number of pharmacists to cut costs, ultimately harm QUM.
4. Should the SUSDP (The Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs & Poisons ) be changed to SUSMP (Medicines & Poisons)?
This has already happened, I don't think it mattered before it did, or now. Changing the name means nothing. It is still the same thing.
I typed a much longer and better response the first time, but I cant remember most of it and dont want to type so much again... so...
MSO is a free online community for both medical and allied health students in Australia & NZ. Med Students Online provides a place for current students and doctors to discuss matters important to them. We also aid in the admissions process by providing information and discussion on the UMAT, GAMSAT and interviews. MSO also caters to medical science, dentistry, pharmacy and other allied health students.
