Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pharmacy dispute
Options
Comments
-
I have no problem with someone earning loads of money. However what we had in the pharmacy industry in the past 10-15 years was a bubble. You could see it everywhere you looked.To go on and on about the amount of money they earn is missing the point
To get into pharmacy in Trinity 10 years ago was something like 560 points. Why are the best and the brightest trying to get into an industry where you dispense products from a high street store?
Pharmacy stores were being traded at ridiculous valuations.
Salaries for graduates were huge.
Pharmacies taking a margin of €530m to dispense €1.1bn of drugs paid for by the Irish taxpayer.
I feel sorry for the pharmacists who are invested in this bubble however like all bubbles they burst eventually with unpleasant consequences.0 -
Prime Mover wrote: »Fine Gael has proposed a model based on the Dutch system and I think this is a good reason to vote them in at the next election. The US system of private health insurance has been very beneficial for advancing high-tech medicine but has been a disaster for low income citizens. On the other hand, the UK is struggling with the NHS. The Dutch system seems like a good balance.
By the way I'm happy for someone to tell me why I'm wrong and debate this out. Perhaps this deserves another thread.
poor americans dont recieve 204 euro a week dole plus all the other goodies in our wellfare state , while i realise that their is a serious amount of gauging from pharmaceutical and the healthcare industry in the usa but the same need not happen here , thier is a middle ground between the american system and an out and out socilised system0 -
To get into pharmacy in Trinity 10 years ago was something like 560 points. Why are the best and the brightest trying to get into an industry where you dispense products from a high street store?
When I started in the course I asked a lot of people in the class (n=56-60) why they were doing it. The majority of the class was female and they didn't seem to be thinking about money that much - if they had any financial motivation it was more about being likely to get a job easily (they were crying out for pharmacists when we started) or have a stable career rather than earning a high salary/opening up their own pharmacy. I found about 3 people in the class who said they wanted to earn a high salary and that was their main motivation. One ambitious guy who had other degrees previously said he wanted to open some kind of medical centre business like the UK model. One other ambitious guy wanted to get into a high position in the pharma industry - an alternative course he was considering was engineering with the same aim. A few people wanted to do medicine but didn't get the points - they were considering doing medicine after the pharmacy degree originally but most of them told me they're happy in pharmacy now.
The vast majority of people in the class just loved science and wanted a career in healthcare without being 'hands on' like a doctor etc. - personally I'm very squeamish but I'm fascinated by medicines and love explaining them to people. A number of people in the class had done the three sciences to LC level - they didn't want to work in a lab environment and pharmacy seemed like a great option. I know that from the outside people think it's just like working in a normal shop but it's really not. I was worried about this when I started but when I got some work experience I found that it's amazingly satisfying to be able to put someone's mind at ease about a minor ailment or a problem with a medication. While doctors have to break very bad news to people pharmacists never have to deal with that side of things - if we suspect they have a serious problem we send them to a GP/hospital, if not, we're able to help them there and then. Also, studying medicine is a very long-term committment to a very competitive and hard-going career (though more financially rewarding and making more of a difference to people's lives) - I admire anyone who does medicine but I never want work to take over my life - I think it's easy enough to put pharmacy second if you have other life committments (family etc.) but medicine can sort of swallow you up.
That and pharmacy as a course is highly challenging and leaves you open to careers in general science (including teaching chemistry or biology), R&D, industry etc and we're looked on as good candidates for PhDs as we do a lot of independent study in the course.
Sorry for the long post but you did ask. I'd imagine that in the past a lot of people did do pharmacy with the intention of setting up their own business. I didn't really get that from my class at all. I remember the summer when I was waiting for my LC results I looked around at the number of pharmacies opening and figured it was unsustainable - I certainly have never had any intention of opening my own business.
By the way, if we were in it for the money, dentistry, accounting, actuarial work etc. would have been way better options that were equally open to us.0 -
Springmaus wrote: »
The vast majority of people in the class just loved science and wanted a career in healthcare without being 'hands on' like a doctor etc.
fair play for such a well-meaning college class
but if pharmacy was minimum wage?
what would the numbers have been? what would points be to do it?0 -
fair play for such a well-meaning college class
but if pharmacy was minimum wage?
what would the numbers have been? what would points be to do it?
It's difficult to imagine - a profession you spend 5 years intensively training for would never be minimum wage.
If it were, noone would do it. The job isn't so nice that you'd go to college to earn the same amount as a 15 year old in a petrol station for the rest of your life! - You carry way too much responsibility to be paid minimum wage or anything close to it.
If the average salary dropped to something like, say, 30,000 - 35,000 (which it apparently did in 1 or 2 pharmacies over the past year - a main guy in the IPU told us this when he visited us in college) I think you'd see a massive drop in points or else people doing the course with the intention to work abroad either in hospital or community (though it's a giant pile of red tape to get licensed to work abroad). You'd always get a few people who do it to get into research or industry. A lot of people in the class (myself still included) weren't exactly sure what we wanted to do - I'm still seriously thinking about research, others are looking at getting into industry, a lot are trying to get into hospital, 1 or 2 are considering teaching. I think any of us would expect to be paid at least as much as a teacher or other typical professions anyway, or why bother with the incredibly difficult and stressful course that many of my friends took serious loans out to pay for?0 -
Advertisement
-
Springmaus wrote: »It's difficult to imagine - a profession you spend 5 years intensively training for would never be minimum wage.
If it were, noone would do it. The job isn't so nice that you'd go to college to earn the same amount as a 15 year old in a petrol station for the rest of your life! - You carry way too much responsibility to be paid minimum wage or anything close to it.
well obviously mine was a hypothetical point...I understand why pharmacists dont earn minimum wage
my point is its all well saying people were doing the course for all these positive reasons but making out the financial reward was not a factor was a bit much you say people wouldn't bother doing the course if the reward was 35k..how this does measure against "I'm not in it for the money"?
you say if the reward was 30-35k then there would be less points but not necessarily as points reflect the amount of places on a course and the competition for them rather than anything else
in every course there are people who will end up staying in academia, teaching etc but the general norm is to enter the relevant industry0 -
my point is its all well saying people were doing the course for all these positive reasons but making out the financial reward was not a factor was a bit much you say people wouldn't bother doing the course if the reward was 35k..how this does measure against "I'm not in it for the money"?
you say if the reward was 30-35k then there would be less points but not necessarily as points reflect the amount of places on a course and the competition for them rather than anything else
Sure, I'm saying that there's a certain point below which the negatives outweigh the positives. I want a career in pharmacy, but even if I were paid a lot of money it's still a stressful job with a lot of aggro from both the public (who apparently think we're all greedy people with the professionalism of a supermarket assistant and waging war against the 'taxpayer' - we're taxpayers too!) and the HSE (who basically think the same) and various other negatives. If you're not struggling to make a living then you have less negatives on your mind but if you're earning less than all your friends who had an easier time in college and work 9-5 jobs, then you're going to start thinking 'surely it's not worth all this hassle'.
A friend of mine is a pharmacologist with a fantastic career history. He originally thought of doing pharmacy but figured he could make more of a difference in pharmacology research. Unfortunately, he was treated so badly in his last work position that he invested 1000s in studying pharmacy in the hope of a career where people respect you and don't mess you around ...enter Mary Harney stage left.
With the exception of people I know in drama/music, where the industry is particularly weird, I can't think of anyone who would stick with a job they previously liked if they were treated badly / couldn't make a decent living from it and could find a less stressful option elsewhere.
And re the points, I was saying that if fewer people want to do pharmacy because of pay slashes, there'll be less competition and lower points... right?0 -
i've just read as much of these messages as is humanely possible before getting physically sick! All you sudden Mary Harney supporters coming out of the woodwork has made me realise that the understanding of the Pharmacists' dispute is practically null. To go on and on about the amount of money they earn is missing the point - first of all the pharmacISTS were not fighting for survival but the pharmacIES - if the smaller pharmacies have to close because they have been told to open up and agree to Madam Harney's ridiculous figures then how many of you will complain when that local pharmacy no longer exists?? Please don't tell me that most of the population really believe that pharmacISTS were putting their patients at risk because they were being greedy? Words fail me! The pharmicIES should have stayed out longer for sure until Harney realised that she had to sit down and talk. The amount of abuse that a friend of mine with his own pharmACY has had to take since Monday is unfair to say the least.
If you're all so much into backing Harney then i await the day that she is given permission to make it impossible for your employer to continue trading and you lose your job - oh and by the way, she will announce it first through the media and won't enter into talks with your employer!
Come on Irish people - you think Harney got at the rich and is now liked by the masses - get the facts right before you start voting for a load of Harneys to rule the world :mad::mad::mad::mad:
1, You clearly have not read the entire post correctly
2. A friend of yours..... Thay says it all.0 -
Springmaus wrote: »I know that from the outside people think it's just like working in a normal shop but it's really not.
One of the things that strikes me about pharmacists is the amount of pseudo scientific treatments that they tend to sell in their shops. I could almost forgive the homeopathic treatments and herbal medicine, but my local pharmacy sell magnetic therapy products.
I wonder how these pharmacists can square their medical professional status with their role as snake oil salespeople.0 -
Springmaus wrote: »
And re the points, I was saying that if fewer people want to do pharmacy because of pay slashes, there'll be less competition and lower points... right?
I would think that given the small number of places on courses for pharmacy that points Could not really be that low even if a lower wage was expected
lower? sure...but still relatively high
anyway your other general points apply to any industry really...the last couple of weeks may have been difficult given the hype on both sides but generally speaking, over the years, does your average pharmacist really have a relatively stressful job?0 -
Advertisement
-
I think I have read correctly. What is 'says it all' supposed to mean? Please back up this statement.0
-
1 Harney plunged nation into another health crisis medicines unavailable to sick and elderlyTim Robbins wrote: »Would it possible to discuss this debacle in this forum?
It concerns Irish politics and the Irish economy after all.
Here's my view based on the latest news that the IPU are advising their members to go back to work.
Harney as done well. I don't think the IPU had a leg to stand on once the:
1. Public realised many were in breach of contract
2. Public realised boots weren't closing.
3. Injunctions came from the courts.
All the IPU / Pharmacists did was:
1. Alienate customers.
2. Play into their competitors hands.
The entire industry needs reform. I would hope we'll pay manufacturers the same as other EU countries and prescribe more generics now.
Anyway, I think Harney has shown the other Ministers an example of how to take on a vested interest and put the country first. We need more tough decisions to get this country out of this flipping recession.
Your comments...
2 The Minster for Health was AWOL whilst the crisis got progessively worse
3 Government broke contracts by creating a new law to say yes we can break existing contracts
4 Vested interest is really the administration of the HSE
5 Their salaries and livelihoods take priority over pharmacists
6 Taxpayer= HSE payroll about Eur500million
7 Cost of medicines does not change still the highest in Europe
8 Wholesalers get off scott free
9 These cutbacks will put 5,000 extra on the dole and further contract the economy
10 More loan defaults for the banks to be handed over to NAMA
DOWN WITH HARNEY
DEMOCRACY WILL PREVAIL0 -
Springmaus wrote: »It's difficult to imagine - a profession you spend 5 years intensively training for would never be minimum wage.
If it were, noone would do it.
There are plenty of people who have studied music, drama, creative arts who spent five years doing so and who are earning minimum wage. There are others who have studied in areas such as sports management where they only use it as part of their hobby and have to work at something else to support their studied profession.
And there are others who have studied in the social care area who give of their time as volunteers.
I guess it is difficult for someone who became a pharmacist to imagine someone studying for five years for minimum wage or less. not so difficult for others.0 -
I think I have read correctly. What is 'says it all' supposed to mean? Please back up this statement.
Whats the point in backing anything up. You clearly cant read. Tend to make sweeping generalisations and are biased by the fact that you have a friend in the industry.
Its a bit like preaching to the converted.0 -
bubble warning.Springmaus wrote: »(they were crying out for pharmacists when we started)
so again why the concentration in the maximum points course? Nurse, police, teachers, public sector etc have much more stable careerSpringmaus wrote: »or have a stable career rather than earning a high salary/opening up their own pharmacy.
I'm sure they did. You don't get 560 points without liking science. However if you wanted to follow that as a career, then you would study science. At the time the points into science was about 400 or less.Springmaus wrote: »The vast majority of people in the class just loved science
Well this is the nub of the issue. A medical career is financially rewarded because it's a difficult job with major responsibilities. However pharmacy was seen as similarly rewarded but without the negatives. Why? Because the barrier to entry was so high and it was highly regulated.Springmaus wrote: »Also, studying medicine is a very long-term committment to a very competitive and hard-going career (though more financially rewarding and making more of a difference to people's lives) - I admire anyone who does medicine but I never want work to take over my life - I think it's easy enough to put pharmacy second if you have other life committments (family etc.) but medicine can sort of swallow you up.
I do feel sorry for those who did get caught in the pharmacy bubble but you cannot deny that it was a bubble. I know when I chose my course, there was major pressure to do pharmacy. ( that was in 94 I think) It was seen as a good job and many at 17 have no idea what they want to do so why not pick pharmacy. Plenty of money and the brightest of the bright were doing it so it had to have been a good choice.0 -
And paddyland, what are your particular vested interests, sounds to me as if you're involved in the pharmacy trade yourself. Otherwise you have just insulted everyone in this thread by telling them all that they cannot come to a sensible opinion on the outcome themselves.
Well done on spotting my involvement in the pharmacy trade. Unfortunately, I have no involvement in the pharmacy trade. None at all. I have no friends in the pharmacy trade. In fact I know little or nothing about the pharmacy trade. So your judgement let you down a bit there!
Sorry if anyone is insulted. But I will not stand by and see a large chunk of people be taken in by the bile that spews from Mary Harney's mouth. I am sure the pharmacy industry needs a good dose of balance and reality. Just like nearly every other industry in Ireland. But there is nothing that Ms. Harney does, that doesn't reek of the worst kind of vested interests, i.e. her own. You really think replacing the vested interests of the pharmacists with the interests of a morally bankrupt government minister makes any kind of sense? You might as well congratulate Adolf Hitler for making mass motoring available to the masses. The masses he didn't see fit to exterminate, that is.
OK Mary Harney is not Adolf Hitler. But she is certainly not the shining beacon of hope some people here would have us believe. She is completely morally bankrupt and discredited, and managing to spin herself a little media coup in the twilight of her appalling political record does not excuse years of abuse of power, nor the blood of people who died horrendous and needless deaths at the hands of a bloated, inefficient, costly and discredited HSE, simply because nobody in power dare ever concede to a mistake or a lack of judgement.
There is nothing, NOTHING, that Mary Harney can do now to resurrect her reputation from the gutter of sick children being turfed out of hospital wards, elderly people being turfed out of trolleys, people DYING due to MRSA or misdiagnoses, hospital closures, questionable contracts for consultants, HSE administration, private hospital developers, abuse of taxpayers money, wanton giving away of state land to private interests, and sheer ignorance of the general voting populace, with a history of ill judged quotes like people having short memories, etc.
If you think bashing a few pharmacies is enough to laud her and forgive her, well you are easily pleased. Hey, Bertie is writing a sports column. Sure isn't he a great fellow after all, too?0 -
Let's all pull back from Hitler analogies as they tend to have a bad rep on the Internet for good rational reasons. A bit more mutual politeness would be good too, looking back at the past few posts.0
-
Diarmuid,
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - the points in my post were not meant to be taken in isolation. I did pharmacy for a combination of reasons (the ones I pointed out) - my point was that pharmacists are not money-hungry and morally vacant as some here would suggest but rather that we had other motivations. Yes, money is a factor. I can think of few courses in college, particularly difficult and stressful professional courses (by which I mean the ones that directly lead to a profession, e.g. accounting) that people commit to without the hope that they will provide a decent, stable income.
As someone mentioned, other people do other courses in college without expecting a great income from them (I also mentioned this!). I thought of doing languages originally but figured I wouldn't be able to provide for myself after 3 years of college and didn't want to burden my parents with a masters etc. I would like to go back and study languages some day if I have the money (I probably won't at this rate). And for the record, I've volunteered in a number of things in the past - I'm not sure if it was you but someone seemed to assert that a pharmacist couldn't understand the concept of doing something without a financial reward - I was referring to investing in a professional college course, which should have been obvious.
Teaching was one of the other jobs you mentioned that you suggest provide stable careers (I could never hack being a Garda or a nurse - too 'hands on' as I mentioned earlier. I wanted to be a teacher when I was younger - my teachers warned me against it and my family assured me that I would find it difficult to get a job - they were right too. As I pointed out in my post, I knew the bubble would burst - I told you that before I even started the course I found it unsustainable - I still did the course and stuck with it for 4 long years - I figured that it would still be easier to get a job in pharmacy than in teaching (and it currently is, so long as you don't tie yourself down to a particulal sector).
Friends of mine who want to be teachers picked their career for a number of reasons, just like I did when picking pharmacy. I doubt they'd have been happy to be teachers if they were expected to work on minimum wage long-term though. Who would be (yes, I know, people doing things like drama, music etc., as I pointed out myself - let's not get into that) ?
I don't want an argument! I really, really don't. I'm just sick of people on this thread saying very insulting things about pharmacists and then ignoring me/assuming I'm lying if I suggest that money wasn't my first and only motivation. I do completely see where you're coming from - yes, money was an issue. Just not the only issue or most important issue!0 -
One of the things that strikes me about pharmacists is the amount of pseudo scientific treatments that they tend to sell in their shops. I could almost forgive the homeopathic treatments and herbal medicine, but my local pharmacy sell magnetic therapy products.
I wonder how these pharmacists can square their medical professional status with their role as snake oil salespeople.
Apologies - this is a really long post but the issue of dubious treatments has come up a few times and I want to be clear about this before people start posting up more insults. Again, I'm really not looking for a fight. I dread checking my email these days. I'm just trying to defend my profession / have a discussion where people don't insult each other. And please read the full post before you start attacking individual bits in it - I start off saying whether these products are a good idea or not and then go on to them being sold in pharmacies.
Homeopathy
For an academic placement we had to fill in a workbook thing about homeopathy and pharmacists' views on it. I think the point of the exercise was to see another point of view or something. I asked the pharmacists where I was doing the placement their thoughts and one said that they had no faith in it whatsoever and wouldn't recommend it (he actually said it was bull****). The other was from the Czech Republic and she seemed indifferent towards it - she said that back home it's taken very seriously and that the way people practice it in Ireland is basically silly, that it's not real homeopathy. Apparently back there you go visit your homeopathy doctor and it's more a 'treat the person' rather than a 'treat the problem' thing. Anyway no point getting into it. I was a bit confused by her stance - I think she didn't believe in it, but she did have respect for homepathy practitioners and didn't have a problem with them as long as they didn't get in the way of treatment for diseases that are safely and effectively curable with drugs - i.e. treating something like anxiety with homeopathy was ok by her.
I have no belief whatsoever in homeopathic medicine - I don't think anyone in my class does either (though a lot of people are pro-herbal) - health professionals generally refer to the stuff as 'magic water'. However, I met a pretty high up hospital pharmacist once who had a personal belief in it ...I thought they were joking, but they weren't. Each to their own (they're a highly scientific person in all other professional aspects as far as I could see and they're entitled to their personal beliefs so long as they don't suggest it as an alternative to a cancer drug or something).
A lot of people out there believe in homeopathy (even scientific people) and if they want to buy a homeopathic product, that's their choice. People have their beliefs and as long as they're informed, I find that it's nice to respect them, rather than starting a fight with them.
When I worked in pharmacies people often came in looking for homeopathic products. That is, they'd look for them by name. As an example, let's pick Arnica. Arnica appears to work by magic. Several of my relatives and friends, including some in pharmacy, have used arnica to get rid of bruises - they all say it works. I then say 'but the bruise probably just faded and you assumed the arnica did it' but they all protest. If they want to keep buying Arnica and their bruises keep fading when they use it, I think that's ok - if it does work, it's probably a placebo effect - how bad as long as they're happy to spend their money on it. I'm not going to start a protest march to have it banned just because I have a scientific viewpoint. And just because I have scientific training, I don't think I should disallow it from being sold in pharmacies.
If someone comes into a pharmacy and I'm selling at the counter (btw, the person who sells things is the OTC assistant, not the pharmacist or even the technician in most cases, so stop calling us shopkeepers/salesmen!) and someone brings Arnica to the counter I'll usually ask them in a friendly manner 'Oh I see you're buying Arnica. Do you find it works for you?' - they've always said either that they find it works or that they heard about it from a friend and want to give it a try - that it couldn't do any harm.
-If they asked me if it could do any harm, I would say 'no, but it's a homeopathic remedy - they people who make it, unlike people who make things like paracetamol, don't have to prove that it works for it to be on sale so I can't say that it will help at all'. I would probably also ask them about the bruise (if they're taking arnica to get rid of a bruise that won't go away, then they need to see a doctor)
-If they expressed something negative 'e.g. I'm not sure about this/ It's quite expensive etc.' I would explain that while a friend of mine says it works, I probably wouldn't buy it myself as there's no evidence to suggest that it does work and that the bruise will probably go away soon enough anyway. If it doesn't start to go away after a week or so, contact your doctor.
-If they asked me what they should take to get rid of a bruise, I'd check that the bruise wasn't anything unusual and tell them it should go away in its own time. If they wanted (usually it's cosmetic, e.g. before a wedding), they could try a product called Arnica - some people swear by it but there's no scientific evidence to say it works.
The reason I chose Arnica here is because it's the only one I can think of where non-homeopathy enthusiasts (just normal people I know) have said it's useful (apart from Teetha granules - but it's the granules themselves rather than the homeopathic aspect that help with teething). I've never recommended another homeopathy product unless someone asked for one, as above. We kept them in a separate area in the shop, next to the cosmetics and far away from anything with a drug in it.
Magnetic bracelets and other magical things
I sold one or two magnetic bracelets a few summers ago. It was basically the same scenario. An elderly lady asked me for one to buy for a friend so I got out the different kinds and she picked the one she wanted. I asked her if she had used one and if it helped, and she said that it definitely did. I said that that was interesting and made the sale. The patient seemed very happy to buy it. If she said 'Do you think I should give one of these a try?' I'd ask them about the pain and if they went to their doctor. If they said that they did already and that the drugs didn't help I'd say 'Maybe you should go back to your doctor and let them know - they might be able to prescribe you something better. The bracelet is supposed to work using magnets but we never learned anything about them in college and there isn't really any evidence to say that they work, but some people who use them say that they help.' I don't think I'm compromising my ethics there. I really didn't care if I made any profits for the company I worked for at the time - I was just giving the patient an option considering that they asked.
The only other time I remember selling a magnetic bracelet was when someone asked for one specifically in a different shop I worked in. I asked them casually if it was to help with pain or something and they said that they just like the look of them and that they couldn't do any harm. Fair enough. They could also buy anti-ageing cream in the pharmacy - up to them. As a pharmacist, if there were a sign on the bracelets saying 'will relieve arthritic pain' I'd take it down and just put them in a plain box.
Lonnnnnng post short, I think it's ethical enough for this stuff to be on sale in pharmacies provided the people at the counter (who actually sell them, not the pharmacists) act ethically. They're never pushed on people (in my experience) - people just tend to ask for them.
Also, people don't seem to understand how pharmacies manage their businesses. Even if a pharmacist owns a business they're very unlikely to be the one who orders in the non-drug products. Usually they appoint a technician or non-dispensary staff member to take care of the non-dispensary ordering. In the last pharmacy I worked in it was always the OTC assistants who ordered things that weren't medicines, e.g. cosmetics, homeopathy things etc. - they probably got the go ahead of the owner at some stage. However, the owner would not think 'let's buy those stupid bracelets and tell our patients that they cure arthritis. It's not like they'll think we're a dodgy pharmacy when their arthritis is not magically cured and that they'll never return'. It's more likely that they would think 'Let's buy those bracelets that people are asking for - we might sell them every now and then even though few people buy them and it's good not to have to turn away business. But we won't tell them that they work, because that would be stupid as they will be annoyed with us if they don't work'.
Again, the message here is 'pharmacists are not evil'.0 -
To state that I am biased because I have a friend in the Industry is the explanation I was waiting for - very mature. Before you accuse me of not being able to read, learn some grammar and correct 'cant'. Then read ricardo1's message - those are the facts.0
-
Advertisement
-
@Springmaus.
Thanks for the long response. I'm not against pharmacists. I am against pseudo scientific remedies and I'm especially against professional people with scientific backgrounds legitimising them.
I've no real problem with shops selling homoeopathic products or magnetic therapies (or any other quackery) as long as they're clear that the products are for entertainment or placebo value only. But when respected medical professionals sell this stuff side by side with real medicine, they endorse it by proxy. People, trusting their pharmacist, and reading the claims on the side of the packet, could be forgiven for assuming that the pharmacist endorses these claims.
There are a couple of arguments that I can buy into to a point. One, that by stocking these products, pharmacists get into contact with patients seeking them out and can direct these people to a GP or to real medicine if necessary. Another is that pharmacists are just selling placebos and these products carry a strong placebo effect (strengthened by the fact they are provided by a respected pharmacist). If this was the position of pharmacists after some ethical consideration, I could understand it, but I suspect that just see this stuff as good for cash generation and, as you say, its OTC assistants, not pharmacists that make the decisions on stocking this stuff.
On the question of the effectiveness of these products; it doesn't matter if some people swear by them or even if some highly qualified medical professionals believe in them. Anecdotal evidence isn't a good enough reason to stock products that haven't been (sceintificlly) demonstrated to work.
On the question of respecting peoples beliefs in alternative medicine; why would you respect their belief if you were convinced that it is demonstrably false? You presumably worked hard to gain your professional qualification and then continued to work hard in your industry. Real medicine is the result of millions upon millions of man hours of study and research and testing and trial and error and then some chancers come along with their sugar pills and claim to be on a par. Screw respecting that. (/end rant)
And on the question of choice; I'm in favour of choice if the choice is between two similar things. Selling magnetic bracelets as a remedy for arthritis isn't providing choice; its just a scam.0 -
Thanks for the reply.
First, I actually said something that I can't necessarily stand by - I think I said the OTC assistants always order them but that was actually just my experience - it could be the owner (possible pharmacist) in other shops for all I know.
Re respecting people's beliefs, I can't prove that homeopathy definitely does not work - all I can say is that there is no evidence to say that it does work. People who believe in homeopathy tend to get very annoyed when scientists or health professionals tell them what to do and it only causes more of a divide between alternative and conventional medicine. If someone wanted to give their kid a homeopathic remedy for an infection instead of an antibiotic I'd step in and point out that there is no way that the alternative rememdy could cure the infection (because the kid and his contacts are at risk). However, if someone wants to use Rescue Remedy, I won't give out to them. I used Rescue Remedy all through my leaving cert (and one or two of my finals!) - my reasoning was that some of the grape alcohol solvent in it might have some small mild depressant effect and also the placebo effect was welcome in times of panic!
I would be disgusted if I thought a distressed patient was putting faith in something they bought in a pharmacy that can't work, so I totally accept all your points. On the other hand, I've always found health food shops and the like slightly disturbing places as there isn't really an atmosphere of 'it mightn't work', which you will always get from someone working in a pharmacy.
But yeah, as long as you don't think that pharmacists set out to deceive their patients, then I'm happy to accept all you said. If those bracelets and the like were banned by the PSI (our pharmacist-led regulator) it'd probably improve the image of pharmacy, but I'd say people would still buy the stuff from shops/alternative health stores.0 -
Sorry for the double post - I couldn't get the edit to work. Just an afterthought.
Actually, just thinking about the bracelets - it's an interesting debate. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just thinking aloud. Like where would you draw the line? I thought selling acupressure bracelets in a pharmacy for travel sickness was very silly but a pharmacy student friend of mine says she can't get by without them (again, probably placebo, but isn't that a really arrogant thing to say?). A lot of health professionals practice acupressure/puncture and I can't say that they definitely don't work but then many people believe it's hocus pocus. Likewise I can't say that about the magnetic bracelets (all I know is that some people say that they work - although there's buckets of evidence for acu and I haven't heard of any magnetic therapists). They sell those weight loss vitamin supplement things in pharmacies too (in the supplement aisle) and I asked the pharmacist about them - she said that she couldn't explain it other than what it says on the label (they have herbal ingredients that are intended to increase your metabolism and they have vitamins, caffeine and sugar for energy so that you hopefully take less unhealthy drinks or food), but that one of the staff members had been using them and lost loads of weight with them. (I'd recommend them over Alli any day of the week btw!) There are some things in conventional medicine that we can't explain so these days I try not to take such a belligerant attitude towards the alternative stuff as people get angry with me when I do. If I took a job working in a supermarket that sold those diet vitamin things I'd tell people who asked me that I'd heard that they worked from customers who bought them but I can't promise that they would help anyone. Same if a friend asked me. My personal instinct would be to say something along the same line when I work in a pharmacy but maybe that's wrong?0 -
It's very clear where the line is drawn. Something either has clinical scientific evidence or it doesn't. It's a disgrace some pharmacists sell magic magnets and other placebos. Especially when many of them are very expensive.Springmaus wrote: »Sorry for the double post - I couldn't get the edit to work. Just an afterthought.
Actually, just thinking about the bracelets - it's an interesting debate. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just thinking aloud. Like where would you draw the line?
No amount of sophistry can ever justify this. I think it is particularly disgraceful as they go to great lengths telling the public that they are essential experts who give the public critical "advice" in the administration of medicine. They should pull the other one.0 -
I was in Springmaus' class and I have to say fair play for the effort put into providing us all with an alternate viewpoint and a bit of education.
However, I would take the opposite view about "alternate medicine." Basically I don't think such a thing exists, something is either medically relevant or it's not. I don't think homeopathic products, magnets, crystals or dream catchers belong in a pharmacy. I think the point that the OTC assistants/owners usually make the orders is a particularly relevant as it effectively takes the control of the ordering out of the pharmacist's hands. We have enough to be worrying about in the dispensary than to be deciding what goes on out front. Rightly so in my opinion. I would prefer to be solely concentrated on what goes on with OTC meds and the dispensary than on any other part of the business. If you're a pharmacist who owns your own shop then great, you're free to tell your employees what to stock. If you're an employee pharmacist and you ask your boss for them not to be stocked what's he/she going to do? You might have a chance but at the end of the day if they sell they'll be stocked. It's business. What's worse is if you're a pharmacist employed by a chain such as Boots or Unicare then you have absolutely no input on what's stocked. Orders come from HQ, if you don't like them there's the door. I wouldn't expect anybody to walk away from their lively hood for such a stupid reason.
Pharmacy as we have seen is extremely fragmented, the union doesn't have any real power or control over what their members do. It would be nice for the pharmacists of this country to get together and say "We aren't working until this crap is out of the shops." However that's not going to happen. The unity isn't there.
I wouldn't and I hope most of you wouldn't take Tim Robbins extreme position and write off an entire profession just because their assistants sell a few trinkets from time to time.0 -
Just a question, if magnetic bracelets were sold in a pharmacy with a clear sign above them saying, pleasantly, 'These are bracelets that claim to have healing effects on the body. However, our pharmacists are 100% confident that they will have no physically healing effect'.
Is it ok to sell them then, if people ask to buy them? (Let's imagine that everyone can see, read and understand the sign perfectly before someone starts that argument!)0 -
It would certainly be better than the current situation however I'd still prefer their complete absence.0
-
I don't agree with all this 'alternative medicines' either, but now that it would seem Mary Harney can go ahead with her 34% cuts I think the Pharmacists will be very dependant on their OTC products to try and make up for their monthly losses which I believe through no fault of their own, will bring them down to a level of glorified shopkeepers.0
-
That's just absurd. I don't write off the entire industry, I write those off who profess to be experts of science who we all need to help us with our medicine and at the same time subvert science to make a few bucks.I wouldn't and I hope most of you wouldn't take Tim Robbins extreme position and write off an entire profession just because their assistants sell a few trinkets from time to time.
The doublethink is incredible.0 -
Advertisement
-
How about they include in the sign: "I was hoping that you wouldn't realise these things are cons, so I could make some money selling them".Springmaus wrote: »Just a question, if magnetic bracelets were sold in a pharmacy with a clear sign above them saying, pleasantly, 'These are bracelets that claim to have healing effects on the body. However, our pharmacists are 100% confident that they will have no physically healing effect'.
Is it ok to sell them then, if people ask to buy them? (Let's imagine that everyone can see, read and understand the sign perfectly before someone starts that argument!)
Do you think anyone would buy them then?0
Advertisement