3 ms·

The world is full of things that can't be eliminated, but we benefit greatly from reducing their occurrence.

by 99_00 3y ago

Aerroon 3y ago
How do we benefit? My country has a drug policy too. One part of it is that asthma inhalers require a prescription. Is the world a better place because I can't legally buy an asthma inhaler without spending a lot of money on doctors visits? I would've appreciated having one on quite a few occasions, but not enough to pay for all the doctors visits.
- 99_00 3y ago
  You see the benefit of unrestricted access to medicines but you completely ignore the harms. That's one sided thinking.
  - defrost 3y ago
    The key complaint above as I read it is the cost of both the drug and the doctor's visit. It's entirely possible to have chaep prescription asthma medication regulated by low cost national health care subsidised doctors appointments.
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      My complaint is: why can't I just buy the asthma inhaler without any kind of subsidy? I know I have asthma, I know how to use an inhaler, but I'm simply not allowed to. Instead I just have to hope for the best when breathing gets difficult.
      - 99_00 3y ago
        You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor.
        Aerroon 3y ago
        >You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor. Sure I do. A doctor has told me as much on at least two different occasions. Once when I was a young child and again later. But because I lost my insurance I didn't get treatment in-between, so I have to get rediagnosed. Jim other words, I'm just going to be relying on caffeine when breathing gets hard.
        99_00 3y ago
        You're right, in your case you shouldn't need to see a doctor. However, that doesn't mean that there should be free access to any prescription drug. The system has serious issues that cause great harm to people like you. And we don't know what harm would exist with unrestricted access. Given the average person's confidence compared to their intelligence, and the effects of cognitive dissonance, bias, other thinking errors, it's reasonable to assume it will be worse. Where I live pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe for some conditions. Other countries have similar systems that allow lower risk medications to be prescribed by people other than doctors for low risk conditions. Ultimately, if you can't afford the doctors visit, I wonder if you can afford the medication. At least some asthma medication is expensive.
      - defrost 3y ago
        The deal in Australia (public health service) is that depending upon the level of severity of a persons asthma doctors want to physically check on patients every three to six months .. if you've been prescribed certain kinds of treatment you get months long "refill prescriptions" that ultimately have to be renewed by a doctor (although I believe that pharmacists can extend arefill prescription if you tell them why you haven't been able to drop in and see the doctor). https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/understanding-asthma/treatment-and-medicines https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/understanding-asthma/treat... AS I understand it you can get an inhaler most of the time w/out seeing a doctor, you can get an inhaler if you really need it, but you do need to see a doctor to keep getting an inhaler so that the progression of your symptoms can be checked. Australia loves epidemiology and keeping tabs on treatments, progressions and outcomes. It's very little to do with spying on individuals and very much to do with keeping tabs on broad health trends and tailoring bulk medication orders, etc.
        Aerroon 3y ago
        Regardless what the intent is, the outcome is that I'm relying on caffeine and sleeping in a semi-seated position when breathing gets too difficult. Luckily, this is rare because I know to avoid aerobic exercise and being in dusty rooms. I'm sure I'm not the only one either. And for people in my situation it essentially means that relief for these issues doesn't exist.
        defrost 3y ago
        Are you in Australia, if so you really shouldn't be in that position of requiring asthma medication but not having any available. If you're not in Australia then the intent of Australian health care procedures doesn't apply. Either way you might consider actively lobbying to change the behaviour of whatever health care sytem you have.
        Aerroon 3y ago
        I'm not in Australia, but the premise is still the same everywhere in the world where these kinds of medications are illegal. The idea behind it is that it forces you through a doctor, but in practice it just means the medication has less availability to people that could use it. I don't see the point in lobbying. I've long understood that any opinion I have about how society should be run is worthless because people might agree in detail, but they won't agree once the scope is broadened into actually doing something. Somebody comes out with a story about how somebody was too stupid to use the thing correctly and ended up hurt, so it should've stayed banned and that's it. People see the negative sides of taking action, but they rarely consider the cost of inaction. I don't even think the problem is with politicians, but rather just people.

The world is full of things that can't be eliminated, but we benefit greatly from reducing their occurrence.

by 99_00 3y ago

The world is full of things that can't be eliminated, but we benefit greatly from reducing their occurrence.

How do we benefit? My country has a drug policy too. One part of it is that asthma inhalers require a prescription. Is the world a better place because I can't legally buy an asthma inhaler without spending a lot of money on doctors visits? I would've appreciated having one on quite a few occasions, but not enough to pay for all the doctors visits.

99_00 3y ago
You see the benefit of unrestricted access to medicines but you completely ignore the harms. That's one sided thinking.
- defrost 3y ago
  The key complaint above as I read it is the cost of both the drug and the doctor's visit. It's entirely possible to have chaep prescription asthma medication regulated by low cost national health care subsidised doctors appointments.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    My complaint is: why can't I just buy the asthma inhaler without any kind of subsidy? I know I have asthma, I know how to use an inhaler, but I'm simply not allowed to. Instead I just have to hope for the best when breathing gets difficult.
    - 99_00 3y ago
      You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor.
      - Aerroon 3y ago
        >You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor. Sure I do. A doctor has told me as much on at least two different occasions. Once when I was a young child and again later. But because I lost my insurance I didn't get treatment in-between, so I have to get rediagnosed. Jim other words, I'm just going to be relying on caffeine when breathing gets hard.
        99_00 3y ago
        You're right, in your case you shouldn't need to see a doctor. However, that doesn't mean that there should be free access to any prescription drug. The system has serious issues that cause great harm to people like you. And we don't know what harm would exist with unrestricted access. Given the average person's confidence compared to their intelligence, and the effects of cognitive dissonance, bias, other thinking errors, it's reasonable to assume it will be worse. Where I live pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe for some conditions. Other countries have similar systems that allow lower risk medications to be prescribed by people other than doctors for low risk conditions. Ultimately, if you can't afford the doctors visit, I wonder if you can afford the medication. At least some asthma medication is expensive.
    - defrost 3y ago
      The deal in Australia (public health service) is that depending upon the level of severity of a persons asthma doctors want to physically check on patients every three to six months .. if you've been prescribed certain kinds of treatment you get months long "refill prescriptions" that ultimately have to be renewed by a doctor (although I believe that pharmacists can extend arefill prescription if you tell them why you haven't been able to drop in and see the doctor). https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/understanding-asthma/treatment-and-medicines https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/understanding-asthma/treat... AS I understand it you can get an inhaler most of the time w/out seeing a doctor, you can get an inhaler if you really need it, but you do need to see a doctor to keep getting an inhaler so that the progression of your symptoms can be checked. Australia loves epidemiology and keeping tabs on treatments, progressions and outcomes. It's very little to do with spying on individuals and very much to do with keeping tabs on broad health trends and tailoring bulk medication orders, etc.
      - Aerroon 3y ago
        Regardless what the intent is, the outcome is that I'm relying on caffeine and sleeping in a semi-seated position when breathing gets too difficult. Luckily, this is rare because I know to avoid aerobic exercise and being in dusty rooms. I'm sure I'm not the only one either. And for people in my situation it essentially means that relief for these issues doesn't exist.
        defrost 3y ago
        Are you in Australia, if so you really shouldn't be in that position of requiring asthma medication but not having any available. If you're not in Australia then the intent of Australian health care procedures doesn't apply. Either way you might consider actively lobbying to change the behaviour of whatever health care sytem you have.
        Aerroon 3y ago
        I'm not in Australia, but the premise is still the same everywhere in the world where these kinds of medications are illegal. The idea behind it is that it forces you through a doctor, but in practice it just means the medication has less availability to people that could use it. I don't see the point in lobbying. I've long understood that any opinion I have about how society should be run is worthless because people might agree in detail, but they won't agree once the scope is broadened into actually doing something. Somebody comes out with a story about how somebody was too stupid to use the thing correctly and ended up hurt, so it should've stayed banned and that's it. People see the negative sides of taking action, but they rarely consider the cost of inaction. I don't even think the problem is with politicians, but rather just people.