Under the bill, a prescriber can write a prescription for off-label use of a drug as long as they have the patient’s permission,
…
They are not required to administer off-label medication if they have an “objective, good faith, and scientific” objection to the drug being used for anything other than what it is intended for, or if a pharmacist has documented that a patient is allergic to the drug or it could cause a life-threatening drug interaction.
“objective, good faith, and scientific” objection to the drug being used for anything other than what it is intended for
That should be a fair standard, except that this is legislation being pushed specifically because objective, good faith, scientific objections were preventing people from getting the ineffective treatments they wanted after embracing right wing conspiracy theories and rejecting actual medical advice. Because this is a requirement and not merely a shield for those doctors who do choose to prescribe a requested medication, the determination for what is and is not a valid objection is not left to the doctor but to whatever body would be adjudication a dispute.
The article doesn’t say what the potential penalty is for refusing, so I’m not sure if this is something that could result in criminal charges, lawsuits, or which might come up on malpractice cases. But I know I wouldn’t want my future to be dependent on my ability to convince a judge and/or jury that my objections are sufficiently grounded in science. Especially not in a state where a majority have seemingly decided that they know more about medicine than doctors and scientists.
It says that but further in it implies the doctor needs a reason to say no by giving reasons a doctor can say no. Good news though, feeling it violates their morals, ethics, or religion is a reason. Since it’s or, any good doctor with morals is probably going to use that.
Under the proposed law, a doctor can prescribe a drug (or not) as they already do. It requires hospitals to dispense the drug if a doctor prescribed it (exception: the usual religious nonsense).
Currently hospitals can refuse to fill a prescription under some circumstances, if they disagree with the doctor.
Okay so reading these is hard because of all the subsections and references to other laws, but it trying to read it, everything is complicated. Not exactly. If the patient has any prescription from anywhere, as long as it falls into the fda specifications etc etc they must allow it to be administered no matter what, but they don’t have to do the administration or dispensing. A doctor from outside and medicine from outside must be allowed in. If I’m reading the bill right, which is hard. Cudos to the news source for linking the bill.
That title is misleading. The article says doctors can write prescriptions for off-label treatments with patients permission.
I’d like 1 heroin, some ketamine, all the weed and how about you throw in some acid. I’m asking for off label use for my tummy ache.
You’re right:
…
That should be a fair standard, except that this is legislation being pushed specifically because objective, good faith, scientific objections were preventing people from getting the ineffective treatments they wanted after embracing right wing conspiracy theories and rejecting actual medical advice. Because this is a requirement and not merely a shield for those doctors who do choose to prescribe a requested medication, the determination for what is and is not a valid objection is not left to the doctor but to whatever body would be adjudication a dispute.
The article doesn’t say what the potential penalty is for refusing, so I’m not sure if this is something that could result in criminal charges, lawsuits, or which might come up on malpractice cases. But I know I wouldn’t want my future to be dependent on my ability to convince a judge and/or jury that my objections are sufficiently grounded in science. Especially not in a state where a majority have seemingly decided that they know more about medicine than doctors and scientists.
It says that but further in it implies the doctor needs a reason to say no by giving reasons a doctor can say no. Good news though, feeling it violates their morals, ethics, or religion is a reason. Since it’s or, any good doctor with morals is probably going to use that.
I wonder if this also covers HRT
Read the actual bill a little now. Of course it explicitly excludes HRT and potentially other things.
😮 Thanks for the update
You know what, that’s an interesting (and I’m betting unintended) consequence
maybe even contraceptives and Plan B or medical variants of recreational drugs 😆 🍿
That’s not what it says.
Under the proposed law, a doctor can prescribe a drug (or not) as they already do. It requires hospitals to dispense the drug if a doctor prescribed it (exception: the usual religious nonsense).
Currently hospitals can refuse to fill a prescription under some circumstances, if they disagree with the doctor.
Okay so reading these is hard because of all the subsections and references to other laws, but it trying to read it, everything is complicated. Not exactly. If the patient has any prescription from anywhere, as long as it falls into the fda specifications etc etc they must allow it to be administered no matter what, but they don’t have to do the administration or dispensing. A doctor from outside and medicine from outside must be allowed in. If I’m reading the bill right, which is hard. Cudos to the news source for linking the bill.
So it’s really just giving legal shelter to quack doctors.
Not exactly. It’s taking away a guardrail that protects patients from quacks. If that results in a bad outcome, the quack is still responsible.