Posts by debunk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
No, I am referring to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 which covers a much wider range of "practitioners" than doctors.
-
Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
and Legal High dispensaries leading to 'diss order' and 'dis tress' ?
-
Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs, in reply to ,
Just referring to overdue change in attitude towards cannabis in the US ..will broaden and has to be an improvement!
-
Steven
I think the whole situation is a mess and if any of these products are proved "safe" the retail outlets should not have been set up first ..as a sole trader think it's unfair for small businesses for starters to be encouraged to get stock (however toxic it may or may not be), rent premises etc and then be closed down on medical whim. Also unfair on consumers because product seems to be very addictive and then it could be cut off on medical/Ministry whim. Whole situation is poorly managed, and is going to cost taxpayers/health system big time ..I see them as shops selling product and not "dispensaries because like mental health don't see advantage in medicalising the situation. Favour US moves myself (and Australian states like ACT where can grow a couple of plants..visited a friend and long time cannabis consumer there doing just that very happily in the suburbs). Maybe NGO like Drug Foundation could set up some sort of specialised drop in centres away from A&E which suspect make stress worse ..tho not familiar with what services they offer ..have helped local ACC claimants in the past for a GP and can see claims coming up with side effects .. tho not for me to deal with..ACC very tricky these days. -
That's because methadone is a treatment ... not the same as selling a recreational drug not on script ..drugs have to well tested and approved by Pharmac (quality control, safety) to be prescribed and dispensed.
-
Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
What would you have recommended?
-
Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs, in reply to ,
"DIspensing"
Probably contrary to the Act assuring competence and ethical behaviour by registered health professionals ..(can't recall name of it)..do no harm etc -
Re Beta-blocker for Legal High side effect...
A&E client could apply for "treatment error" then from ACC?
-
Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs, in reply to BenWilson,
Follow the USA re marijuana, as I said earlier and for stimulants we already have lots of Ritalin available on prescription (which students in UK are using for supposed cognitive enhancement as well as stimulant effect) and the benzodiazapines are old drugs well researched and cheap on script too (eg valium). I don't know. But the approach here is going to end in a lot of unnecessary harm (eg strokes, heart attacks, kidney failure, brain damage) before the process is decided. It is not possible to do clinical trials (unethical for a start) and banning on reported effects is, in my view, going to set up legal battles which are already quite unfair too often in the ACC Court, depending on what counsel claimants can afford if any, and the attitude of the specialists. NZ medicine does not generally run on the "evidence" in ACC but rather on medical opinion, and unfortunately that is the path this dispute is heading down. My opinion. What if Russell's friend had had a stroke and lost speech, movement etc. Who would be blamed? These are the questions we need to think about. The businesses selling this product will have lots of cash and legal firepower at hand, unfortunately. Dr Ramsey uses two tissue samples to test these drugs - one for heart response and one for brain - according to this article (laboratory rats). But research on animals has been banned?
-
Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs, in reply to Russell Brown,
Dr Ramsey's opinion implies that, for the proposed "clinical trials," these will not be possible with a randomised treatment regime, so how are sellers going to do proper assessments as the Act requires? What will be compared with what? There are just too many unknown unknowns here to measure anything properly. It is an article that rewards careful reading.
It also points out, as you have found with A&E, that the medical fraternity do not know what to do because they don't know what they are "treating"..as Ramsey says "There simply aren't the resources to risk-assess everything, and I don't know if there's even the appetite to do it."