> I don't know, did you look? You made a statement, it is up to you to back it up. > I know from personal experience that pharmacists do catch errors, but I h

> I don't know, did you look? You made a statement, it is up to you to back it up. > I know from personal experience that pharmacists do catch errors, but I have no clue if anybody is keeping statistics on it. Thanks for sharing your experience. > I'm struggling to understand the logic in wanting pharmacists to be more ignorant. This is IT security 101 - the less randos have access to a sensitive data the better. > Even if cops couldn't interrogate pharmacists because they were all blind and dumb, they'd go to local doctors instead. In context of US situation I guess the benefit if when out-of-state telehealth doctor prescribes and local pharmacy clerks don't have access to those records. The best theoretical end game would be to either have such records on encrypted device owned by patient or none at all. > The police are the problem that needs to be addressed. Last decade or so the tendency has been to solve this by technical means, where possible. Like e2e encrypted messages, encrypted iCloud/Google backups, recent announcement of local Google maps timeline, etc.