|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Tuesday, March 30, 2004In medicine, doctors, with an assist from the federal government, have a dominant position with regard to the patient and have a unique amount of control over their paying customers. Many people may disagree with this characterization, but I fail to see anything different in spite of recent efforts to change this relationship. Patient autonomy does not exist in any way like it should. In no area is this more apparent than in the prescription-only status of most medicines. It always amazes me that this fact is never called into question, especially among my medical school colleagues. There is no shortage of debate in and about medicine on just about any other topic, but we accept this culture of the gatekeeper almost without question. You would think just once you would here somebody say, "Doesn't anybody find it odd that it is illegal for this patient to by this drug unless I write it down on a little piece of paper and then sign it?" Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't think of another aspect of the human experience where one set of people, not members of the government, wield that amount of power over others. I can't say I agree with all of his points. There are some drugs, like prescription allergy medication, and ulcer medication which are fairly harmless and don't really need monitoring or the help of a doctor to decide whether or not they're needed. But there are others - heart medications, cancer drugs, blood pressure drugs, etc. that either need the expertise of a physician to make the correct diagnosis for their appropriate use or that need to monitored closely for potential side effects. Even drugs as seemingly benign as blood pressure drugs need to be monitored periodically to make sure they aren't having adverse effects on the kidneys or, in some cases, the heart or the balance of the body's electrolytes. That isn't being paternalistic, just responsible. posted by Sydney on 3/30/2004 04:20:00 PM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
