| 17
July 2003
Reviving pharmacy
WORDS
are powerful, and this could not be better exemplified than by the
controversy over a single word being used in Senate Bill 1900, "An
Act Regulating the Education and Licensure of Physicians and Their
Practice of Medicine in the Philippines and for Other Purposes."
The bill revises the older Medical Act and now defines the physician's
roles to include the following: "to diagnose, treat, operate or
prescribe and dispense any remedy for any human disease, injury,
deformity, physical or mental condition."
Sounds fine. Unless you're a pharmacist, and you notice the word
"dispense." The Philippine Pharmaceutical Association, a
nationwide organization of pharmacists, has issued a strong statement
opposing the inclusion of this function among a physician's functions.
Under current laws, there's a very clear distinction about what
professionals can do in relation to medicines: prescribing is limited to
physicians and dispensing to pharmacists.
We tend to think of pharmacists mainly as people who sell medicines. You
go to a drugstore and assume all the people behind the counter are
pharmacists. Actually, most of them are sales clerks, with some training
on medicines. What the law requires is that there be at least one
licensed pharmacist supervising the sales clerks.
The dispensing of drugs involves more than just selling the products.
Dispensing includes a careful check of the prescription, to make sure
the right drug is given. We all know about malgraphicus medicus, the bad
handwriting of physicians that can be confusing. The physician may have
prescribed Losec, an anti-ulcer drug, but careless dispensing could mean
Lasix being given to the patient, which makes a world of a difference
because Lasix is a drug to induce urination.
A trained pharmacist looks out for these differences and more. The
pharmacist is also expected to advise the patient on the proper use of
the drugs, not just how much to take but when to take them. Even simple
advice like taking a medicine after meals is important because there are
many drugs that should not be taken on an empty stomach because they can
irritate the stomach or intestines. (Examples are aspirin, and
pain-killers like ibuprofen, found in Alaxan and many other brand-name
preparations.)
A pharmacist is also expected to check a physician's prescription to
make sure the medicines do not conflict with, or duplicate each other.
In hospitals, pharmacists will even advise the nutritionists and food
preparers about avoiding certain foods that could affect the medicines.
Most importantly, dispensing is about people. A pharmacist is there to
make sure the medicines are appropriate to the patient, taking into
consideration the person's illness, age, sex, even socioeconomic
background, as we will see in a while.
All these responsibilities are part of dispensing, a function that is
reserved, in most countries, for pharmacists.
There are two main reasons for this specific division of labor:
First, pharmacists are trained to handle medicines, all through the four
years of college, and, for others, several more years of postgraduate
work. Older readers will remember how pharmacists used to compound the
drugs, mixing different ingredients to make a particular medicine. That
is no longer done today, but in principle, a well-trained pharmacist
still knows what ingredients go into each product. Physicians are also
trained in drugs but this is limited to a few courses in pharmacology
since they have to take many other subjects.
The second reason why dispensing is reserved for pharmacists is to avoid
a conflict of interest. If a physician is allowed to prescribe and to
dispense drugs, you can imagine him prescribing more drugs because that
would mean the patient will be purchasing more drugs from the physician
as well. The temptation isn't just to prescribe more drugs, but the most
expensive ones.
In the real world, of course, there are many ways of getting around this
division of prescribing and dispensing roles. Many physicians,
especially in rural areas, simply set up a pharmacy next to their
clinic, with the pharmacy run by a relative. Then, too, there are
pharmacists who sometimes succumb to the promotions of drug companies to
promote particular brands. Nevertheless, a legal separation of the two
functions is still important, at least to give patients some protection.
Pharmacists are upset with the proposed new Medical Act because it
further infringes on a profession that is already greatly weakened. The
old function of compounding medicines has been taken over by large drug
companies. Even the selling of drugs has gradually been taken over by
large chains like Mercury, so independent pharmacists are rapidly
disappearing.
Pharmacists remain in great demand in Western countries. There is, in
fact, a less known brain drain going on as our pharmacists leave for
countries where they're better appreciated. In other countries'
hospitals and pharmacies, pharmacists continue to play major roles,
checking on all prescriptions and advising patients. Recognizing that
pharmacists are often the first health professionals to be consulted by
someone who is sick, some Western countries have even modified laws to
allow pharmacists to take on a semi-prescribing role, for example to
advise someone on family planning options.
My pharmacist friends say there shouldn't be any competition between
physicians and pharmacists. It's all a matter of fairness to all
concerned, health professionals as well as patients. A physician is busy
enough handling all kinds of other responsibilities so the minute
details of dispensing medicines should be left to pharmacists. If
anything, we should be reviving pharmacy rather than further weakening
the profession.
|