@freemo And it presumably also greatly helps doctors prevent drug abuse by patients that "shop around" for a prescription.

@LouisIngenthron Which is NOT the place of a doctor... hell he shouldnt even have the right to tell you what you can put in your own body.. bodily autonomy is a sacred right.

@freemo True, but these people aren't always shopping these prescriptions for personal use.

@LouisIngenthron Thats not a problem your doctor should be trying to solve.

@LouisIngenthron its also could be easily solved if designed with the proper care (a system which does not openly let you see what a person is prescribed but will automatically block a pharmacy from filling the same prescription multiple times, even across different pharmacsy)..

@freemo Sure it is. They, as a profession, are responsible for making sure the drugs get to the people who actually need them, not seedy douchebags who want to make a quick buck. That's presumably *why* only they can write prescriptions in the first place.

@LouisIngenthron NO.. their job isnt to be police and figure out if your lying or not to deal drugs... their job is to beleive you, and help you, they work for you.. they are there to do whatever tests or ask any questions to diagnose and then use the evidence they have (not speculation) to decide how its treated... If someone is lying and drug dealing thats for police not doctors..

The idea that you think a doctor should be adversarial and suspicious and try to figure out if your honest or not, even if that may be wrong get in the way of treatment and ultimately kill you is... well.. an astonishing perspective (though a common one).

I take it you have never actually been at the mercy of a doctor and abused by the sound of it.

@LouisIngenthron And the reason why only they can write prescriptions is to make sure your disease is diagnosed by someone accurately and safely... not to investigate if your lying about your symptoms.

@freemo No, I don't think they should just give out drugs to anyone who asks. People, especially in large groups, are very dumb. That system would inevitably cause spiraling panics where people buy up the whole stock of a drug because they're scared they'll run out, thus causing them to run out. When stupid games are played like that with toilet paper, it's an annoyance. When they're played with critical medicine, people die.

So, no, our current system isn't perfect, but someone does need to make sure that people who get the drugs actually need them.

@LouisIngenthron

No, I don’t think they should just give out drugs to anyone who asks.

I didnt say that… I said a doctor isnt there to play cop and investigate if your lying.. They still need to 1) hear your symptoms 2) do any tests that are possible and 3) give you an evaluation… What they arent there to do is second guess you and decide if your lying.. especially when if doing so puts good people at risk of dying due to wrong assumptions.

People, especially in large groups, are very dumb. That system would inevitably cause spiraling panics where people buy up the whole stock of a drug because they’re scared they’ll run out, thus causing them to run out

You can fix that how I already explained without needing to abuse people.

Have a one-way database… you cant look up what a person has taken in the past or get any access to their history.. but when they go to buy something IF they have bought more than a month’s worth the system will not let the transaction go through…

These are easy enough problems to solve when you actually prioritize someones safety and health rather than allowing abuse at someones discretion.

When they’re played with critical medicine, people die.

Good thing there are easier better solutions then that let people keep their history private AND prevent them from buying up stuff… if anyone cared enough.

So, no, our current system isn’t perfect, but someone does need to make sure that people who get the drugs actually need them.

Sure.. so why instead of using a system that opens people up to massive abuse and death we use a system that actually accomplishes that?

@freemo The problem with that plan is that there is no set amount for “a month’s worth”. It varies by person and condition, hence why we need prescriptions.

@LouisIngenthron Yes there is… what your doctor prescribed you… if your shopping around you have multiple doctors and multiple prescriptions, which would flag you in a one-way fashion (without letting anyone query your history itself)

@freemo So, you’re completely opposed to doctors being able to track you, but pharmacists having that exact same tracking is no problem?

@LouisIngenthron

So, you’re completely opposed to doctors being able to track you, but pharmacists having that exact same tracking is no problem?

Not what i said.. its a one-way database, no one can track you.

In other words no one, not even a pharmicist could see your history of medications. All the system tells a pharmacist is if a prescription they try to fill passes or not. It will only fail if they have more than one overlapping prescription. So it prevents buying up or shopping around or drug dealing.. but NO ONE has access to your history or can see it.

@freemo The fact that it’s one-way means they can’t investigate to fix edge cases. Get a new doctor and legitimately get a refill prescription from him? Flagged for the same prescription from two doctors. How do you fix it if nobody has the full picture?

@LouisIngenthron Sure they can, if designed to allow for it.

there can simply be a checkboc on prescriptions that says “override” .. when checked it means the doctor knows there is another overlapping prescription and this prescription is meant to replace it.

That way if someone needs a replacement script they can get it, but they most tell the doctor and show the doctor knew that it overlaps with another.. problem solved, quite easily.

How do you fix it if nobody has the full picture?

The patient has the full picture. in edge cases the patient tells the special case to the doctor, as mentioned above, and the system confirms the information the patient volunteered is correct. As per my example above (which explains that particular edge case)

@freemo But then we’re back to a system that ultimately hinges on a doctor deciding whether a patient is being honest (that this new prescription is replacing the old one), so it’s just a fancy and paperwork-heavy version of “trust me”.

@LouisIngenthron

But then we’re back to a system that ultimately hinges on a doctor deciding whether a patient is being honest

No your not… how ya figure.

Typically a doctor doesnt need to trust hte patient at all in the non-override case obviously.. In the case of an override a doctor will only check the box if the overlapping prescription is one he prescribed. If there is a case where a different doctor prescribed it then all he has to do is say “override” and then next to it put the other doctors name (given to him by a patient). The doctor doesnt need to trust him because the system will automatically only override a prescription from the doctor named.

Again every edge case you think cant be solved by a one-way system actually can, and no as I jsut showed it wont require the doctor to trust anyone should the system be designed correctly.

@freemo So what prevents someone from going doctor to doctor, telling each one that they just moved and this is their previous doctor? Then the doctor puts in the name of the last prescriber, marks override, and the system prevents nothing.

@LouisIngenthron

Simple, in order for an override to work ALL overlaps must be listed, not just the last one. So if there is a 30 day prescription and they get a second one after one day.. they would need to wait 29 days before that works again or else there will be 3 overlaps not two and the system will not allow it.

See, super easy to address this stuff in a way that protects people.

@LouisIngenthron Yes but you dont have to take away my right to privacy to do that... just make it so I an opt-out and choose for myself.