In my latest copy of the journal, someone suggested prescriptions that confirm the diagnosis and then allow the pharmacist to decide what to use to combat the illness.
Forgive me, but the vast majority of pharmacists in this country are not prescribers and they certainly were not educated to be. I'm fresh out of university and currently doing my pre-reg in hospital, this weeks rotation is on the heamotology ward, and i've discovered there is quite a clear reason why only consultants and specialist registrar's are allowed to prescribe chemotherapy in this trust.
Prescribing is complex and the responsibility is great. If medics diagnose the patient and pharmacists prescribe, who will check the clinical appropriateness of our decision before the patient is supplied?
Traditionally the pharmacist's role was to supply medicines and pharmaceutical care. Prescribing pharmacists are breaking away from that role, and I support the odd individual who can really make a difference to their patients by prescribing, however the profession is running a massive risk to patients if it plans on becoming the prescriber and supplier - isn't this exactly why doctor's don't dispense?
You can't prove your point