Minutus

I am still interested in debating the assertion that pharmacies should
only supply proved remedies as it also raises the question whether
what's in the Reps and MM's is reliable and whether some established
remedies should even be in the MMs and whether they should be available
from the pharmacies. I also obviously think we do have to
diffferentiate between prescribing on a whim, guesswork and informed
decision, but this can apply to remedies both proved and not proved.
Remedies ARE still being proved, but there is certainly room for more.

The question in my mind is that if we take Joys assertion that the
Pharmacies only supply proved Rxs then should we not also throw out
ALL the Repertories and MM's that contain Rxs with no provings?

Some examples of unproved Rxs curretly in use or available follow-

Simon

To my mind an even bigger issue is, what is the role of the pharmacies?
Policy-making, or remedy-making? Certainly it's a pharmacy's right to
choose what it supplies, and to base that on criteria of its own
choosing--e.g. "what's available", or "what I have resources to stock",
or "what I believe should be available", or whatever. But to try to
tell "pharmacies" what they must or must not sell? That seems entirely
wrong to me, for a host of reasons... My mind pops up the analogy that
it's a bit like insisting that lawyers must defend only the
innocent--it's not the lawyer's *job* to determine innocence, but
rather to find and air the facts. (And yeah yeah, they sometimes twist
and hide facts too, but I'm leaving that out of my analogy! )
Shannon