PDA

View Full Version : I went free market on my pharmacy school today




jack555
12-08-2009, 05:36 PM
So today in my pharmacy program we took a break from science and focused on history of pharmacy in the United States.


I think I pissed off a TON of people but also enlightened some. The teacher would ask us what we thought about certain acts like one that made it so that consumers could only get a drug by prescription (for a doctor). This was his first question and the whole class remained silent. I declared that I would oppose the act. The class laughed (not at me) thinking I had to be joking and was trying to make a funny. But it soon became clear that I was very serious.

Currently there are prescription and over the counter drugs. However there is debate over whether there should be a third class of drugs that consumers can buy but they must have the pharmacists permission (like allergy drugs, high blood pressure drugs, and cholesterol drugs). Anyways at one point a lady said that prescription drugs like cholesterol should remain behind the counter because some patients may be affected in a bad way by the drugs. I replied saying that lets say we have 100 people. 95 are going to be fine by having the pharmacist allow the drug to be taken but 5 will not and should see a doctor. Should the 95 that would be fine have to pay to see a doctor (and get a full cardiac work up) just because the other 5 could have problems with the medications?

She was appalled and said what if one of those five were your mother. I replied with what gives you the right to force those 95 to see a doctor (things were kind of getting hectic and we were kind of speaking at the same time). The class starting getting excited/woohing and the teacher stopped us haha.

But it was a lot of fun and I encourage everyone to speak up in class (when appropriate) about freedom and the free market. I definetely got some gears turning.

malkusm
12-08-2009, 05:40 PM
+1, keep putting your 2 cents in!

dannno
12-08-2009, 05:52 PM
The key is free speech in medicine. Those drugs should be properly labeled by the drug company so that individuals can make the determination of how the drugs may affect them. If they don't get labeled well, then more people will have problems and less people will use those drugs. If they are properly labeled by the drug company then fewer people will have problems and it will be a more successful drug. Free markets work like that.

However, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to seek advice from a pharmacist or doctor, but there is no reason to force them to.

StilesBC
12-08-2009, 06:42 PM
This can be counter-productive if you don't argue the right points. They can come away thinking "those laissez-faire types are wacky."

Other points you could have raised:

- the necessity of a pharmacist makes the medications more expensive, thus unavailable to a large portion of sick persons
- many people that would normally just go get a certain medication at the first sign of problems are required to wait to see a doctor, thus increasing the risk of their condition worsening before receiving treatment
- not allowing access to certain medications assumes that people are not responsible enough to make decisions with regards to their own bodies
- many alternative methods of educating drug recipients could be used other than doctor screening. For example, computer booths could be set up at drugstores. People would be required to read an information document and answer questions prior to buying the medication.

Don't let the crowd pin you down in a barrage of "what ifs." If they do, turn it around on them with a rhetorical absurdity. "What if a doctor forgot to tell their patient to take it orally and they accidentally took it rectally?" When they stop laughing, launch into the above.

james1906
12-08-2009, 07:21 PM
This can be counter-productive if you don't argue the right points. They can come away thinking "those laissez-faire types are wacky."

Other points you could have raised:

- the necessity of a pharmacist makes the medications more expensive, thus unavailable to a large portion of sick persons
- many people that would normally just go get a certain medication at the first sign of problems are required to wait to see a doctor, thus increasing the risk of their condition worsening before receiving treatment
- not allowing access to certain medications assumes that people are not responsible enough to make decisions with regards to their own bodies
- many alternative methods of educating drug recipients could be used other than doctor screening. For example, computer booths could be set up at drugstores. People would be required to read an information document and answer questions prior to buying the medication.

Don't let the crowd pin you down in a barrage of "what ifs." If they do, turn it around on them with a rhetorical absurdity. "What if a doctor forgot to tell their patient to take it orally and they accidentally took it rectally?" When they stop laughing, launch into the above.

How can one stop laughing when the word rectally is used?

I have thought about this too. If all drugs were OTC or at least prescriptions just required authorization from an RN, there's would be fewer people seeing the doctor.

RSLudlum
12-08-2009, 07:32 PM
Was the AMA discussed at all? You might want to read this article about Mark Twain fighting the AMA.

Limiting the Choices: Twain versus the American Medical Association (http://www.annals.org/content/126/2/157.full)
(It's about halfway down the page, but you might be interested in reading the entire paper)


“[T]here has always been a variance of choice under which system a citizen preferred to find his way across the Styx, and he enjoyed in this State till now the privilege of choosing the rower who was to aid in ferrying him over in Charon's boat.”

“… The objection is, people are curing people without a license and you are afraid it will bust up business.”

jack555
12-08-2009, 08:57 PM
This can be counter-productive if you don't argue the right points. They can come away thinking "those laissez-faire types are wacky."

Other points you could have raised:

- the necessity of a pharmacist makes the medications more expensive, thus unavailable to a large portion of sick persons
- many people that would normally just go get a certain medication at the first sign of problems are required to wait to see a doctor, thus increasing the risk of their condition worsening before receiving treatment
- not allowing access to certain medications assumes that people are not responsible enough to make decisions with regards to their own bodies
- many alternative methods of educating drug recipients could be used other than doctor screening. For example, computer booths could be set up at drugstores. People would be required to read an information document and answer questions prior to buying the medication.

Don't let the crowd pin you down in a barrage of "what ifs." If they do, turn it around on them with a rhetorical absurdity. "What if a doctor forgot to tell their patient to take it orally and they accidentally took it rectally?" When they stop laughing, launch into the above.

Thanks for the tips. I agree those would be great things to talk about.

I did mention several of them lightly but I was responding to specific questions and I had to be careful not to change the subject and seem like a propaganda machine.

Also I am very careful to try and not come off as a looney and think I am very good at it. However it is very tough to on the spot try and explain free market principles in a 10 second time frame but overall I think i did liberty some justice today and definetely got some gears turning.


edit- Also the part you said about not needing pharmacists. I agree that we don't need pharmacists who have training mandated by the government (currently doctor of pharmacies). However I could not make the point that we shouldnt have them or else I would have lost total credibility (in their eyes). What I did say was that we were probably overeducated and should move back to say a 5 year degree because of a ton of wasted time/material in our undergrad.

phill4paul
12-08-2009, 08:59 PM
Was the AMA discussed at all? You might want to read this article about Mark Twain fighting the AMA.

Limiting the Choices: Twain versus the American Medical Association (http://www.annals.org/content/126/2/157.full)
(It's about halfway down the page, but you might be interested in reading the entire paper)

Nice read..thanks for the link!

jack555
12-08-2009, 09:00 PM
Was the AMA discussed at all? You might want to read this article about Mark Twain fighting the AMA.

Limiting the Choices: Twain versus the American Medical Association (http://www.annals.org/content/126/2/157.full)
(It's about halfway down the page, but you might be interested in reading the entire paper)


He did not mention the AMA. Because we are a pharmacy program he focuced entirely on pharmacy. I mentioned the AMA to friends who asked me questions later.

Mark Twain seems to have been a pretty decent guy...