Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

bloombergquint.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 308 posts

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#101

Post by cimmanom »

LinuxBender wrote: post #97
cimmanom wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're fortunate to have both the intelligence and the time to do that effectively. Not everyone has the capability to assemble, decipher, and fully understand that information.

In my opinion, everyone should take the time to study the drugs that they are prescribed, as well as the interactions to foods and supplements. I believe this is more important that anything related to one's career or investments. You only get one body.

It sounds to me as if you're failing to grasp just how difficult that is to do for at least 80% of the population.

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#102

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

LinuxBender wrote: post #97
cimmanom wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're fortunate to have both the intelligence and the time to do that effectively. Not everyone has the capability to assemble, decipher, and fully understand that information.

In my opinion, everyone should take the time to study the drugs that they are prescribed, as well as the interactions to foods and supplements. I believe this is more important that anything related to one's career or investments. You only get one body.

The guy sitting in the local fatburger downing the 128 oz of full sugar soda hasn't even bothered to understand their basic nutritional requirements - drug interactions are going to be waaayyy beyond them.

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#103

Post by barftransit »

shub wrote: post #83
madamelic wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's a very silly and awkward process to find a tech person, make the meeting, wait for the meeting, show up to the meeting, tell them your issue and the solution for it is [solution], let them examine your problem until they agree with your "diagnosis" of [problem], and let them recommend and prescribe [solution]. It makes you feel sorry for the tech person almost. There is a reason why we have specialists. Yes, yo…

One can represent themselves. It might be dumb, but people should have the right to be dumb when they're the only ones getting hurt. That's why I have no problem with engineering requirements: when a bridge, airplane, whatever falls down and goes boom, it's not only the owner who's affected. I'm an adult. It's legal for me to buy and drink bleach. It would be very stupid of me to do that, but I can. I should be able…

Yes, and when you're left alive and disabled you should have the right to become a ward of the state.

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#104

Post by stochastic_monk »

FireBeyond wrote: post #89
stochastic_monk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the AMA and FDA should stop preventing patients from taking contraindicated combinations or failing to understand the risks they’re taking on by self-medicating? Pharmacology is complicated and dangerous. Letting corporations go hog-wild will harm many people.

You realize that's why the FDA introduced the "behind the counter" classification, that requires pharmacist interaction - and frankly, I trust my pharmacist on drug combinations more than my physician.

Correct. Which is why only so many drugs are behind-the-counter. More dangerous drugs or ones which need more guidance to avoid harm have tended to be prescription only.

IE, there’s a reason not every uncontrolled substance is OTC.

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#105

Post by 394549 »

thatcat wrote: post #91
Communitivity wrote: post #69

There are better ways to go about this. As others have noted, there must be a mechanism for a continual prescription to be easily filled, e.g. insulin, metformin, etc. I could see a long term prescription that has to be renewed each year and is good at any pharmacy. For the short term prescriptions though, cutting the doctor out of it makes people much more susceptible to marketing (instead of 'ask your doctor if you…

It's a trade off since Doctors have a habit of using their prescription power to force you to schedule unnecessary visits to boost profits and they are not immune from marketing pressure.

> It's a trade off since Doctors have a habit of using their prescription power to force you to schedule unnecessary visits to boost profits and they are not immune from marketing pressure.

Citation needed. I'm sure are a few doctors out there who do that, but I have a hard time believing that's so widespread that it's a "habit" of "doctors." For instance, my doctor will reissue my long-term prescription if I call him, the next I hear of it is when the pharmacy sends me a notification saying it's ready.

That said, I'm sure there are prescriptions that actually do require regular long term medical monitoring by a professional, even if a lot of people are annoyed by that and therefore think it's unnecessary.

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#106

Post by nanagull »

394549 wrote: post #105
thatcat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a trade off since Doctors have a habit of using their prescription power to force you to schedule unnecessary visits to boost profits and they are not immune from marketing pressure.

> It's a trade off since Doctors have a habit of using their prescription power to force you to schedule unnecessary visits to boost profits and they are not immune from marketing pressure. Citation needed. I'm sure are a few doctors out there who do that, but I have a hard time believing that's so widespread that it's a "habit" of "doctors." For instance, my doctor will reissue my long-term prescription if I call hi…

For just one example: 33% of doctors always require a pap smear and pelvic exam to renew a birth control pill prescription. This is despite the fact that the WHO and ACOG both advise that the pills can be safely prescribed without the exams.

33% certainly counts as more than a "few" in my book.

Citation:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-birth-control/women-seeki...

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#107

Post by 394549 »

shub wrote: post #83
madamelic wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's a very silly and awkward process to find a tech person, make the meeting, wait for the meeting, show up to the meeting, tell them your issue and the solution for it is [solution], let them examine your problem until they agree with your "diagnosis" of [problem], and let them recommend and prescribe [solution]. It makes you feel sorry for the tech person almost. There is a reason why we have specialists. Yes, yo…

One can represent themselves. It might be dumb, but people should have the right to be dumb when they're the only ones getting hurt. That's why I have no problem with engineering requirements: when a bridge, airplane, whatever falls down and goes boom, it's not only the owner who's affected. I'm an adult. It's legal for me to buy and drink bleach. It would be very stupid of me to do that, but I can. I should be able…

> One can represent themselves. It might be dumb, but people should have the right to be dumb when they're the only ones getting hurt...

The difference is there isn't a massive industry that will try to persuade consumers to do something as dumb as choosing to represent themselves pro se. There's no way for others to profit off that kind of stupidity.

On the other hand, the drug industry already advertises to consumers heavily to convince them to take prescription medication that they may very well not need. That kind of consumer stupidity can be very profitable, so the vultures will descend from the heavens to persuade people that the dumb choice is really the best one for them.

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#108

Post by LinuxBender »

cimmanom wrote: post #101
LinuxBender wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, everyone should take the time to study the drugs that they are prescribed, as well as the interactions to foods and supplements. I believe this is more important that anything related to one's career or investments. You only get one body.

It sounds to me as if you're failing to grasp just how difficult that is to do for at least 80% of the population.

I completely understand that a majority have a big learning curve ahead of them. I am just not a fan of corporations and laws targeting the lowest common denominator. I should have the ability to consent to making these decisions myself, assuming I am willing to take the risks. I would even be fine with getting a government issued certification that verifies I am educated enough to make an informed decision.

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#109

Post by panzagl »

thatcat wrote: post #94
aesclepius wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for speaking for the entire medical profession. That is in fact what a terrible physician does, and not what myself or other newly trained physicians aspire to do.

If you live in a location that has poor selection of GPs then it should be your choice to opt out without denying yourself access necessary medication.

If you don't go to a doctor, how do you know it's necessary?

Re: U.S. to make More Drugs Easily Available, Cutting Role Doctors Play

#110

Post by vilmosi »

illvm wrote: post #92
toomuchtodo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only New Zealand and the US allow prescription drug marketing directly to consumers. And yet, all other developed nations seem to be doing well managing pharma access for their citizens. A cynic might think this policy is intended to juice US pharma profits.

idk, the past few times I was in Russia I saw a plethora of adverts on TV for drugs.

Not prescription drugs.
Post reply on HN