In article <[log in to unmask]>, Ahmad Risk
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:54:01 -0000, Fay Wilson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>What about lifestyle drugs like PPIs for indigestion or whizzo stuff for
>>cancer that increases lifespan by six weeks, both of which soak up buckets
>>of cash thereby producing opportunity costs which disadvantage very many
>>people with unmet needs (whether health or not)
>>
>>Or wasn't that what you meant? Maybe you should ask on pharmacist-UK?
>
>That was not what I meant. When I say "bad drugs", I mean bad drugs for
>you, the patient. I mean drugs that are prescribed and taken by patients
>for perfectly good reasons and valid conditions, yet somewhere along the
>line, the patient suffers side effects that have not been reported, or the
>side effects are hidden because they are small, or the patient suffers
>damage that is not documented elsewhere.
>
You may not have adequately expanded your definition! Many of these
lifestyle drugs are considered unnecessary and only needed because
patients make poor personal choices. These choices have consequences
that may be visited upon the individual or society at large. I believe
that there is considerable scope for the argument that lifestyle drugs
are bad drugs because they are starting severely to damage my wealth.
>I would've thought GPs would know their patients better than pharmacists.
>Still, this may not be true, and Jeff might come to the rescue here.
>
>Why are you having problems with the concept "bad drugs"?
>
>Risk
--
David J Brown
For Extraware for Vision Users see
http://www.extraware.co.uk
|