You can not make good policy with good intentions. Once again, the adage is true in the publication by AFSSAPS, the list of 77 drugs "at risk". Authoritative voices raised against this approach for the less brutal with the primary prescribers failing to place them in a medical uncomfortable position: What can they indeed meet the patients to whom they have prescribed for several years now specialties considered "at risk"?
Once again, doctors are a bit poor and alone to face a decision certainly inspired by the best intentions but "sold" if one may say the most disastrous way. Obviously, we have therefore ignored the lessons of the episode yet stinging vaccinodrĂ´mes of the pandemic H1N1. In the urgency and precipitation media, the agency supplies as food products, which for the most part, had not previously been criticized as lapidary, particularly in the description of side effects. Under such conditions, the requirement is now a feat that doctors are only to be met face to patients with confusion and suspicion are easily understandable.
Has so far thrown the baby out with the bathwater? This much regret that the private practitioners, relayed by some experts as Professor Claude Le Pen who hesitate to wonder, in the columns of "Doctor's Daily" on what may well serve as diverse a list that is remarkably complicated usages of "one dialogue", that is to say, the dialogue between doctor and patient.
The least we can say is that we do not end with the collateral damage of the Mediator. To achieve repentance, health authorities, including Afssaps strongly criticized in the report Igas January 15, not butts. At the point that it took rectify this: according to Representatives of Afssaps and Professor Didier Houssin, head of the DGS, it is not a blacklist of dangerous drugs off the market. "This is a safeguard for patients," Professor Houssin ensures explaining that enables enhanced surveillance to take appropriate measures. Specifically, "this should in no case allow patients to whom it was prescribed one of these drugs to stop taking it without first having taken advice from their pharmacist and / or their doctors' written Afssaps. That gibberish as useful as a bandage on a wooden leg. Was there a any time questioned the response of patients are now entitled to wonder if all drugs are not Mediator in power? Have we, finally, when asked about the speech to take when faced with patients clueless? Nope ... I must admit that the list of gaffes in public health is almost as long as that of 77 drugs "at risk". The rest should keep a record of repeated blunders: they happen probably 77, and without forcing.
Hervé Karleskind
Still great anything!
0 comments:
Post a Comment