In
the pharmacy that I predominantly work most often, I am being told
countless times how the previous owner and manager knew the ages
of their children and all their medical history.
He had clearly worked very hard at keeping his customers happy through
tremendous amounts of public relations, and I tip my hat to him.
However, it
appears that he, and other pharmacy owners I have worked for seem
to disagree with the three days supply rule of continuing medications.
Patients
continually walk into the pharmacy asking for medication X which
pharmacist Y used to give them all the time without a prescription
because they were going to see Dr Z on Day L.
When I offer the three days supply, I very quickly get told to
P.O or F.O, without the patient minding their P's and Q's.
The patients
seem to forget the favour that is being done for them, and fail
to appreciate the seriousness of me potentially breaking the law
in order to provide them with slightly more convenience in their
life by giving them a month to see a doctor.
With
the advances in technology and operating hours in pharmacies and
medical practices, is it really necessary to give the three days
of continuing medications?
A simple phone call from the patient to the doctors surgery can
produce a faxed prescription within an hour.
So why apply the three day rule on a day when the surgery is open
and the doctor is in?
What is more
frustrating is when the explanation of the law relating to owing
prescriptions and the consequences it can mean for the registered
pharmacist is greeted with the response of "that's bullshit.
I usually get the full pack".
The Pharmacy
Board of Victoria has already produced a wonderful campaign entitled
"don't go until you know".
Perhaps its next project can be "Legal requirements of pharmacists",
with a possible amnesty on pharmacists who have breached the three
day rule leading up to the release of such an initiative (to stop
vindictive customers who have been told "no", reporting
previous times that the pharmacist has given the full supply).
And the same
abuse is present with credit.
It is hard
to buy the sob story that someone can't afford the three dollars
and seventy cents for their medication today when they are carrying
a carton of cigarettes that they have purchased from the supermarket
next door.
And the response
of "I'm sorry, we don't give credit without credit history"
seems to lead to even more abuse.
One must wonder how much luck they would have purchasing their
carton of "Winnie Blues" on a seven day account at their
nearest Coles.
But of course
there is a reason why people expect this sort of service from
pharmacy, and why they expect the "yes" response, and
that is because they have received the "yes" response
previously.
When a pharmacist
tries to conduct his or her business in a professional manner
within the law, abuse should not be his or her reward.
|
.jpg)
