What Is The Point of Pharmacists (Honest Question)

ddilrat on 03/08/2023 - 17:12

I am not trying to be rude to anyone's profession but I am honestly asking and hope someone can explain the process.

What I don't understand is a pharmacists role in filling a script other than putting your details into the system. You already see a physician who prescribes the medicine, tells you about dosage and side effects, knows what other medications you are taking and also what the new prescription is for.

What's the point of the pharmacist then asking a bunch of the same or similar questions? Why does it take so long to dispense especially when you have been to the pharmacy before. Looks like it all comes straight out of a machine now anyway.

Seems like their only purpose is to keep people in store to buy other crap.

Health & Beauty

Comments

  • Muzeeb on 03/08/2023 - 17:17
    +5

    Your simplistic view is, to a degree, correct. Pity it's just not that simple.

      • meowsers on 03/08/2023 - 19:28
        +35

        Rubbish. Any doctor worth their salt knows all of this as well.

        • ddilrat on 03/08/2023 - 20:12
          +12

          I mean I really thought that was the sort of stuff I was paying my dr to know.

          Pretty scary if they just prescribed something without know about a significant interaction

          • Protractor on 04/08/2023 - 10:28
            +15

            @ddilrat: And yet you are poo-pooing the inbuilt safety net for the very scenario. You can't sue the GP from the grave.
            Sometimes GPs miss stuff.The ph/ may pick this up. They also offer alternatives and feedback to take back to the GP
            The pha/ also needs to factor in patients may have cognition issues,memory lapses,anxiety etc.

            • belongsinforums on 05/08/2023 - 00:23
              +3

              @Protractor: and who else will sell you TCM?

            • capslock janitor on 05/08/2023 - 22:14
              +1

              @Protractor: Sometimes I appreciate having the box in hand and them telling me again how to use it

              • Chandler on 07/08/2023 - 14:12

                @capslock janitor: Limiting liability - if they don't tell you how to use it, and you use it incorrectly, you could potentially litigate. If they've told you (and it's also in the instructions in the box), then you have much lesser chance of successful litigation.

            • paloverde88 on 07/08/2023 - 14:01

              @Protractor: If Gp can missed stuff do can pharmacist

              • Chandler on 07/08/2023 - 14:11

                @paloverde88: Of course - they're only human.

                But by having that second set of eyes most potential issues will get caught.

                • paloverde88 on 07/08/2023 - 18:02

                  @Chandler: Who will be the pharmacist second pair of eyes? This cycle just goes on and on.

                  • Chandler on 08/08/2023 - 12:20

                    @paloverde88: Of course - who watches the watchmen?

                    And if we had a second pair of eyes for the pharmacist, then we'd just be having another post asking "What is the Point of X (Honest Question)".

                    My comment was specifically in response to the "if the GP misses stuff" point. As per my other comment GP's don't know everything about pharmaceuticals, and thus may not know of or pickup all interactions: pharmaceuticals is not their speciality. However, pharmaceuticals is the speciality for a pharmacist. The premise there being that they shouldn't need a second set of eyes, as they should know everything there is to know about pharmaceuticals. GP's do not, as it is not their speciality.

          • IgorPrev on 05/08/2023 - 00:30
            +7

            @ddilrat: You forget that a pharmacy is not just for people who have seen a doctor. There are some drugs that walk in customers can get without seeing a doctor - but must be vetted by a pharmacist. These drugs are not prescription only - but are somewhat restricted - if you meet certain criteria, a pharmacist is then qualified to sell these to you by asking certain questions.

            One such example is Sudafed (Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride) a common decongestant which used to be available over the counter but was restricted because dodgy peeps were making speed out of it. Someone qualified enough needs to take your ID and observe if you appear to be an addict etc to decide (with qualifications) whether or not it should be supplied to you - hence Pharmicist.

            A full list of other examples that are permitted to be sold by pharmicists that do not require the inefficiency of having to go to a doctor, line up, take time etc then travel to a pharmacy are available here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2023L00864 — Schedule 3, Page 61.

            Conversely, a list of prescription only (doctor only) medicines are in Schedule 4, page 70.

            I suppose a doctor could also prescribe everything in Schedule 3 - but why wait in line and travel to 2 different destinations and tie up the health system for certain drugs that merely require a "little bit" of control ?

          • Chandler on 07/08/2023 - 14:09
            +4

            @ddilrat: It's called specialisation. It's in the name:

            General Practitioner: good at general medicinal practice - diagnosing, treatments for said diagnoses (or referral for treatment at a relevant specialist)

            Pharmacist: good at pharmaceutical medicine - medicinal treatments, what they do, how the work, what they're made of, etc.

            Do you go to your GP for a triple bypass or brain surgery? No, you get referred to a specialist.

            Do you go to an Anaesthetist if you have an undiagnosed illness? No, you go to your GP.

            As others have said in this thread - yeah, GPs will know stuff about pharmaceuticals, and depending on how long they've been practising and what professional development they do some will know more than others, but they don't know everything. A pharmacist is the one to know everything about pharmaceuticals.

        • Sinnerator on 05/08/2023 - 09:48
          +1

          some, but not many, doctors are worth their salt

        • vi9ilante on 05/08/2023 - 23:50
          +4

          You'd be surprised. The amount of times we've had scripts from Dr's with incorrect dosages, contraindications is way too many times for comfort. The comments down below validate my point.

          I do see some people's initial scepticism about the role of Pharmacists but I guarantee that's either because they've yet to have a child, gotten old or have to look after elderly relatives.

          • meowsers on 06/08/2023 - 09:42

            @vi9ilante: Probably written by an IMG GP.

            The standards seem to have dropped at some point in the last 10-15 years and we are getting some truly shocking overseas GPs.

            Most are good, but some do whatever they want. Their records are atrocious, notes and referrals look like they were written by a child.

        • endotherm on 06/08/2023 - 10:17
          +1

          Keep in mind that statistically one out of every two doctors is below-average.

          • meowsers on 06/08/2023 - 10:51
            -1

            @endotherm: And of that 1 out of 2, a higher proportion will be overseas trained.

          • Randolph Duke on 06/08/2023 - 11:18
            -4

            @endotherm: What does that even mean? Below average compared to what, other doctors ? A licensed, “below average” GP is still infinitely more qualified than the general public.

            What a dumb comment.

            • endotherm on 06/08/2023 - 11:30
              +1

              @Randolph Duke: Do you understand statistics, and sarcasm?

              "Average" is being half-way between the top scorer and bottom scorer in a group. Therefore half the group is going to be above-average, and the other half is below-average. I never drew any comparison of doctors to "the general public". Though it applies to any group. Half of the population is going to be of below-average intelligence. Of all drivers, half of them have below-average driving skill. Get it yet???

              You would hope in any serious expertise/profession, they weed out the sub-standard applicants before they even start. Even if you were to set the pass/fail mark really high, say everyone under 80% fails, within the remainder you will still get half of them below-average, even though that average is set really high.

              • Randolph Duke on 06/08/2023 - 13:52
                -2

                @endotherm: Of course I understand from a statistical point of view what “below average” means; but what’s the point of your post? It literally means nothing.

                You would hope in any serious expertise/profession, they weed out the sub-standard applicants before they even start. Even if you were to set the pass/fail mark really high, say everyone under 80% fails, within the remainder you will still get half of them below-average, even though that average is set really high.

                Exactly.

                • endotherm on 06/08/2023 - 14:05
                  +4

                  @Randolph Duke: You seriously can't recognise a joke or sarcasm? It is a truism. It is literally a 100% correct statement, but doesn't have a point to make.

                  Have a look around, lots of threads on here have a bit of humour injected to lighten the mood.

                  • Randolph Duke on 06/08/2023 - 14:19
                    -5

                    @endotherm: I’ll let you know when I find the humour in your post! Shouldn’t take me too much longer ;)

              • Chandler on 08/08/2023 - 12:34

                @endotherm: Do you understand statistics?

                Average is not half-way between the top and bottom scorer. Average is the sum of all values divided by the number of values. In a well distributed set of values, yes it will be the half-way point (or close-by). But not all sets are well distributed. https://www.dictionary.com/e/average-vs-mean-vs-median-vs-mo…

                Player Score
                A 2
                B 4
                C 6
                D 8
                • Min = 2
                • Max = 8
                • Average (Mean) = 5
                Player Score
                A 2
                B 4
                C 4
                D 8
                • Min = 2
                • Max = 8
                • Average (Mean) = 4.5
                • Median = 4
                • Mode = 4
                Player Score
                A 1
                B 1
                C 4
                D 8
                • Min = 1
                • Max = 8
                • Average (Mean) = 3.5
                • Median = 4
                • Mode = 1
                • endotherm on 08/08/2023 - 12:59

                  @Chandler: Yes, I do understand the mathematical and statistical differences and the nuances involved. It was clearly a joke about averages, it doesn't play the same if I substituted the word "median" for "average". Maybe the joke went over everyone's head. It makes it hard when you have to explain a joke to someone, so I described it in a simplistic way to make it easier to grasp, seeing that they were already struggling to understand. It also assumed a larger sample size in the class scores and a fairly even distribution of results.

                  I also recognise your pedantic reply as a light-hearted burn. I have also been responsible for making similar replies in other posts. :)

                  • Chandler on 08/08/2023 - 14:23

                    @endotherm: Noted, and whilst I did understand and agree with your point, your statement about understanding statistics immediately followed by stating the average being half-way between the bottom and top values rang some alarms.

                    If I was to categorise the components of my comment:

                    First paragraph/sentence: light-hearted burn
                    Second paragraph: pedantic reply / explanation in case you truly didn't understand what an average is
                    Remainder (tables/etc): examples for the masses

          • sal78 on 24/08/2023 - 09:34

            @endotherm: It's good to get a 2nd opinion. Also, older GPs have been around for yrs may have come across a few similar cases.

        • Wiser on 06/08/2023 - 12:36

          If that is the case why pharmacists are liable for what they are dispensing. If not you only need someone who can read and write english and basic pharmacy asisatants qualifications to dispense these medications.

          How many doctors ask you what other medicatios you are taking?
          You may be gettid prescriptions from different specialists
          They never consider interactions of these medications..
          Pharmacists are legally required to widen their knowledge base in line with industry developments.
          Pharmacists compound medications.

      • [Deactivated] on 03/08/2023 - 22:27

        You mean, they can read paper insert, unlike doctors? And that they actually do it before dispersing medication?

        • Wiser on 06/08/2023 - 17:42
          +1

          No .
          There is much more than that.
          Some of these are not commonly available to general public.
          Pharamscists study in depth about how these chemical molecules work on human dody and interactions between these molecules.
          I trust my pharamacist more than my doctor on medical dispensing.
          While I trust my doctor more than my pharmacist medical diagnosis

          • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2023 - 18:41
            -2

            @Wiser: Yes, pharamacists (sic) might study how molecules work on your dody (sic) but they don't know what other molecules are already in your dody (sic).

            Not once in my life pharmacist asked me if I take any other medications. Ever. Doctors, on the other hand, always do it before they prescribe you medication.

    • CalmLemons on 05/08/2023 - 11:23
      +70

      Person with a pharmacy degree here.

      I agree, even my partner says, don't you just stick a label on a box? I'm like yeah, but you gotta stick it in the right place.

      But no, in all seriousness, dotpoints here:

      1. Primary points:
        Pharmacies still exist as it's cheaper for people to see the chemist for common ailments, colds, vitamin requirements, first aid, hayfever, baby supplies, than it would be to pay $110 to see the doctor. It's cheaper to the point that the consultation is free, you buy the product sure, but the margins are extremely slim these days.
        The cost to you to see a pharmacist would be say $10 of actual profit to the pharmacy, based on a $30 average sale, vs $110 to see a GP. That's 10x the price to you or the government.
        You will not find a similar comparitive cost saving anywhere else.
        A doctor cannot stock the $400k to $1.5m worth of stock in your average pharmacy.
        A doctors clinic does not have the manpower or capability to run a completely separate business.

      2. Secondary points:
        Doctors don't know everything there is to know about the drugs. They would spend a few months at best during their medical training going through the drugs, amongst the 5-15 years of specialising.
        They have 10-15min with you, billed at what, $60 every 15 mins approx. There is no time to go bother dealing with dispensing medication.
        It takes a long time in the pharmacy, because it's not dispensing the medication that takes a long time, it's the people who ask 100000000 questions in the middle of you dispensing the medication that takes the time, it's all part of maintaining a feasible business model in order to be able to stock the range of otc, medications and vitamins in the business while dispensing the medication. It's not profitable to just be able to provide medications alone these days thanks to the discounting model. The pharmacist in general runs the whole shop, compared to say a super market where you have layers of middle management, teamleader, retail staff etc etc.

      I get it though, often I would stand there and cringe at some of the questions asked. Bear in mind, most of the time you might be served by a student in training. 80% of my time, I was training students. Just be patient. People can always learn and improve.

      1. The industry as it is
        A lot of talent has left the industry and most of my cohort became doctors or dentists and moved into other careers.
        The ATAR dropped from 98 from my year to low 80's or even 70's now as no one wants to do it.
        You're now being served by a significantly different level of people, how shall I term it?
        I was super fast, I trained my students super fast, but yes, there are some that are SUPER SLOW and just not switched on.
        Most health professionals are lacking in EQ in some manner, but do you want someone who can do a good talk, or actually knows their stuff? (general statement here)
        What's worse, was simply the disgusting mannerisms of a small minority of the general public.
        Alas, pricing counts, which means non-competitive wages, which means now, since everyone wants a bargain, you get what you pay for. The customer is right at the end of the day, and the customer dictates the price, and the level of service. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
        Chemists are on $28-35 an hour, $40 tops - HOW MUCH DO YOU GET PAID NOW?
        Drugs are restricted, because without restriction, people cannot be trusted.
        And trust me, australia and the world, has a massive drug and alcohol problem.
        I used to speak to the manager at dan murphys, and at 11am in the morning, the main comment is, people drink way too much.

      The future:
      Yes, AI can do the job, so can will it do for doctors as health professionals are trained to follow a system and guidelines in the treatment of patients.
      But do you feel comfortable being treated by a screen or someone who gives you more of a human touch which is what most people seek, affirmation and comfort.
      Do you want to pay $100 to see the GP, to get a cold tablet?

      The perspective:
      Most people can be quite narrow minded, without being informed of the full perspective, not do they want to hear it. It's just the nature of people.
      This same behaviour makes it difficult for anyone to do their job.
      Takes a long time, because it takes a long time to deal with difficult people, which we used to see often.
      Any job in which you're dealing with people, stuff takes a long time.
      Sticking labels on boxes is easy, PEOPLE ARE HARD.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 05/08/2023 - 14:49
        +6

        You're now being served by a significantly different level of people, how shall I term it?

        Dumber.

        • capslock janitor on 06/08/2023 - 21:54

          Wtf is this BS?? @CalmLemons

          It takes a long time in the pharmacy, because it's not dispensing the medication that takes a long time, it's the people who ask 100000000 questions in the middle of you dispensing the medication that takes

      • Joda on 05/08/2023 - 15:37

        You mention the future - do you think community pharmacy can survive (60-day dispensing, online pharmacy, increasing costs, etc)?

        The health sector already seems to be unsustainable - do you have any views on what impact the loss of community pharmacy will have on overall population health?

        • sal78 on 24/08/2023 - 09:41

          No

      • Look Up on 05/08/2023 - 18:59
        -3

        The pharmacist in general runs the whole shop, compared to say a super market where you have layers of middle management, teamleader, retail staff etc etc.

        Isn't this the inefficient model that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia is protecting?

        When even Coles and Woolworths don't have the political power to enter an industry, something is up

        Based on what you have described, if a pharmacy was run inside a Colesworths and they employed the on-site chemist for $40/hour, wouldn't that be a superior model for everyone?

        The chemist would concentrate on the human interaction and dispensing, Colesworth would look after the general ranging, merchandising and supply chain

        • CalmLemons on 05/08/2023 - 21:10
          +6

          Isn't this the inefficient model that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia is protecting?

          Actually having one pharmacist run most of the shop is actually more efficient than have 4 layers of middle management.
          The current pharmacy model actually solves much of the principle-agency problem + you have a person who is highly trained and educated at university specifically for running the shop, in some respects.
          This is why chemist warehouse has propagated so well, because the part owners are very invested in the business and are very efficient at doing so.

          When even Coles and Woolworths don't have the political power to enter an industry, something is up

          The current model was actually a solution to a previous major problem, when you had so many pharmacies everywhere, then the government consolidated them to have a max within a certain area give or take.
          You'll find mass generalist operators like Coles and Woolworths will lack the expertise to operate pharmacies as efficiently.
          Masters for example. Running business on a grand scale well involves numerous factors and a combination of many skills, most of which takes years of operational training.
          Just look at the result of having bakeries and delis inside supermarkets, convenient, yes, but quality wise IMO it's at least 40% off from specialised operators.
          There's just so much more to this than what I can cover in a comment.

          The chemist would concentrate on the human interaction and dispensing, Colesworth would look after the general ranging, merchandising and supply chain

          Chains like chemist warehouse and priceline already operate it this way, however there is still a huge component that requires the actual pharmacist. You simply cannot train retail business people in the art of medicine.

          Besides this, just remember what happens when you put all your eggs in basket.

          Bunnings dominates the hardware market and are pretty much a monopoly to charge whatever they want, as they literally have the power of distribution and retail location whether you like it or not. It may seem cheap, but it is not.
          In one business, staples cost about $10 for 20000, at bunnings they're sold for $10 for 2000. This isn't the best example, but it's a 10x profit increase for bunnings. (Yes, smaller packs cost more)

          Having a string of micro operators can go to creating more market liquidity, more consumer choice, without the major super market chains crushing the industry. You get cheap bread and milk, but you'll pay 4x for everything else. Companies operate in the interests of the share holders, not you.

        • CurlCurl on 06/08/2023 - 09:45

          The pharmacist in general runs the whole shop,compared to say a super market where you have layers of middle management, teamleader, retail staff etc etc

          They must be all hiding in the lunch room at my local Coles.

        • sal78 on 24/08/2023 - 09:42

          A pharmacy must be owned by a pharmacist. Unlike a doctors surgery can be owned by anyone.

      • Caped Baldy on 05/08/2023 - 20:50
        +3

        What's worse, was simply the disgusting mannerisms of a small minority of the general public.

        As someone that deals with the general public this is way too true. I'd say 95% are fine but the 5% are real dipshits and entitled.

      • caitsith01 on 07/08/2023 - 15:57

        You sound like you know a lot so… what is actually happening when I go in, there is no-one waiting, and I give them a script for a drug I've taken for the last decade? Because at my local pharmacy they then go and do… something… for 15 minutes before I can have my medication.

        Surely it's a click of a button to know:

        1. It is prescribed for me by a doctor
        2. I've had it loads of times before
        3. It's in that little box right there in the prescribed dose?

        People often trot out the drug interactions thing but how do you know what other medication I may or may not be taking? I've never had my pharmacist ask me if I'm taking anything else.

        • bohn on 07/08/2023 - 16:11

          Maybe you aren't taking anything that has serious contraindications?

        • yolo123456789 on 07/08/2023 - 16:44

          Can there be someone waiting but just not standing in the pharmacy? and I mean..15 minutes to me doesn't seem like that much time anyway…

        • CalmLemons on 07/08/2023 - 19:58
          +1

          Yes, it's true, the drug interactions check would rarely apply to you. I'm going to cheekily say here perhaps you have one of those new generation pharmacists;)

          Have you actually timed it? (Genuinely asking - sometimes 4 mins at mcdonalds can feel like 30 mins)

          Can you see what else is waiting in line behind the counter?

          They could in the middle of:

          Dealing with another customer
          Making a cream at the back
          Pharmacist is on a call
          Dealing with shop matters

          Most of the time I would try to push scripts first, sometimes that isn't always possible when you've been waiting on a call from a doctor for the past 4 hours.
          Sometimes if it was busy, I would try to do the single script ones like yours first before bigger scripts.
          However then you would get the forum thread, why did the pharmacist serve the guy who came after me first?

          It always looks like the pharmacist isn't busy from behind the counter, and the waiting area often looks empty but there can be 5-6 lots of scripts with anywhere betwee 1-8 medicines each, assuming an average of 4 medicine per lot, that's 24 individual scripts waiting before you. Most of these people normally drop off and come back 20 mins later - but it doesn't mean you can get to the head of the line unfortunately as that often makes it confusing, especially if the pharmacist gets interrupted and Mr Panagiopolous who dropped in his script 30 mins ago still hasn't gotten his done yet.

          When I was working, I would literally hope before a customer handed in their script, that it would be a regular customer like you as it is easy to put through.
          Your script would take me less than 1 minute. But if someone hands in a hand written hospital script before you with 12 items on it, in illegible hand writing, without the doctors details, with drugs of dependence on it, that could take me 15 mins along on the one script, not including the 5-10 min phone call, not including the 5 mins of compulsorary drugs of dependence searching. Literally that one script could take a minimum 30 mins, then another chase up hours later or the next day, while you have a customer who has probably been waiting in the hospital for 8 hours. They're absolute drainer prescriptions. The pharmacy is not reimbursed for this extra time at all. What should take 12 minutes, now takes 60 mins, at doctors rates, what was $100, now gets to billed at $400 This can happen anywhere from twice to a dozen times on a normal shift, and that would make it hell.

          No one wants the customers hovering around the pharmacy, trust me, pharmacist wants you out of there as fast as you want to be out of there :).
          Where we were trained, the goal was to get the customers in and out, asap - most of the time this is perceived as good service by the customers - whether it is good for them of not. Did we make mistakes? PLENTY. The volume one pharmacist would do in one day was purely dangerous. Willing to do that at $30 an hour?

          • sal78 on 24/08/2023 - 09:48

            @CalmLemons: So true! Ppl think medical receptionist not busy if waiting room is empty bit there's 101 things to do. If only the job was checking ppl in and making appts.

  • scrimshaw on 03/08/2023 - 17:23
    +43

    I think the better question is 'What do pharmacists know that doctors don't?"

    https://www.quora.com/Does-a-pharmacist-know-more-about-drug…

    Why are pharmacists so important when a doctor can do their job?
    I am a hospital pharmacist. Physicians do not have the time to figure out dose adjustments for renal or hepatic function. They definitely don't have time to research drug interactions. When a physician enters an order, an alert will pop up, telling him/her of the problem. They choose an option "pharmacy to evaluate". If they tried to do my job, then they would see less patients, which decreases revenue.

    I work in oncology, where the physicians know their stuff. I still recheck their chemotherapy calculations, because everyone can make a mistake. Believe me, physicians are glad there are pharmacists.

    My guess is that that pharmacists generally know more about drug interactions (since they their degrees center around pharmaceuticals), while the doctor knows what kind of medication to prescribe you they aren't experts in that discipline. So they work together to deliver health outcomes

    They might remember what a pharmacist has told them before so if it's a common ailment (say, flu) they can give you common advice that has been given many times before by a pharmacist.

    Seems like their only purpose is to keep people in store to buy other crap.

    I think That question got answered in 2019

    • diss on 05/08/2023 - 18:26
      +1

      This is what I was thinking, GPs are googling stuff half the time.

      • May4th on 06/08/2023 - 12:46
        +3

        people say it like it's a bad thing, but most of the training is about knowing where to look, and what to do with the information.

        I'd be wary of the doctor that never looks anything up because medicine and guidelines are forever changing and nobody knows everything, especially in GP, where your job description is literally to know about everything

        • diss on 06/08/2023 - 21:53

          True, my point is just that they don’t necessarily know any more than you can Google yourself about certain drugs and interactions, whereas that’s a pharmacist’s job

  • SnowDragon on 03/08/2023 - 17:24
    +1

    This was asked on Reddit a few weeks ago and had a few good answers

    Note that the responses may or may not differ from Australian pharmacist duties.

  • bobbified on 03/08/2023 - 17:27
    +1

    Pharmacists, as we know it, dispense pre-manufactured medication, but they sometimes mix the different proportions to. I can't remember what the word is, but some pharmacies have a lab in the back - for example, if they needed to create a smaller dosage for children. Pharmacists do work outside the retail environment in hospitals and labs/research too.
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14114154/redir

    • No on 03/08/2023 - 17:31
      +20

      Compounding pharmacy is perhaps what you mean?

      • Gdsamp on 03/08/2023 - 17:41
        +1

        Yep they createm potations

      • bobbified on 03/08/2023 - 17:49
        +1

        That's the word I was looking for! haha

      • drprox on 05/08/2023 - 07:45

        Yep wife went to one of these recently. Amusingly the pharmacist then didn't want to provide the drugs the doctor had prescribed!

    • SpainKing on 05/08/2023 - 08:15
      +1

      Why does the end of your comment have a link to your own comment?

      • bobbified on 05/08/2023 - 13:27
        +1

        I actually have no idea. tbh, I didn't even notice.. until now that you've pointed it out!

      • capslock janitor on 06/08/2023 - 22:08

        I clicked it 3 times and was tripping out

    • capslock janitor on 06/08/2023 - 22:00

      Your redirect link was meant to redirect where?

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/08/2023 - 17:31
    +5

    Same question as what's the point of the Courts. Just let the cops send the guilty peeps to jail!

    • pharkurnell on 03/08/2023 - 17:40

      that would be a step forward…

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/08/2023 - 17:47
        +13

        Not really when the cops don't even know the law.

        • bohn on 03/08/2023 - 18:26
          +5

          Out of the 31 weeks at police academy in Vic, the recruits spend weeks 2-12 learning:

          • law
          • communication skills
          • drill
          • operational safety tactics (including firearms)
          • family violence response
          • community engagement
          • road policing

          So no, they wouldn't know the law well at all really. By the time they cram in all rest of the training course, by week 31 they've probably forgotten most of it. Then it is whatever they learn (and retain) on the job. And if they get it wrong, the courts will sort it out ;)

          • Protractor on 04/08/2023 - 10:30
            +15

            @bohn: Funny how it only takes them minutes to master their most important function

            Turning off the body cam

          • capslock janitor on 06/08/2023 - 22:03

            @bohn: Whabbout week 1?

            • bohn on 07/08/2023 - 15:45

              @capslock janitor:

              Your first week at the Academy will be an induction week.

              This is dedicated to introducing you to the Victoria Police and Academy environments.

              You will learn the values, ethics, roles and responsibilities of being a member of Victoria Police.

              The first week also includes information about assessments and preparation for learning

              You wanting to join? ;)

      • RiseAndRuin on 03/08/2023 - 17:54
        +1

        First they would have to even start an investigation.

    • ddilrat on 03/08/2023 - 23:25
      +3

      Very different. Lawyers, judges etc are highly educated. Cops…. Not so much

      • Ozpit on 04/08/2023 - 09:22
        +2

        Inspector Harold Francis Callahan always got it right when sorting the bad from the good.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/08/2023 - 12:51
        -2

        Same with medicine.

    • Transient on 03/08/2023 - 23:30
      +3

      Judge Dredd style: I am the law! I liked that movie.

      • KSMLJ on 04/08/2023 - 20:22

        Stallone or Urban?

        • Transient on 04/08/2023 - 23:23
          +1

          Stallone.

          Thanks, I didn't know there was one done by Karl Urban. I'll have to find it to compare. Was it any good?

          • illusion99 on 05/08/2023 - 07:46
            +4

            @Transient: It’s better than the Stallone version by a mile. It’s essentially a remake of The Raid but with Judge Dredd

          • Gnostikos on 05/08/2023 - 17:09

            @Transient: Lol, Judge Dredd with Stallone is just a meme, it's a campy, goofy more violent rendition of Power Rangers, no one actually considers that a worthwhile adaption of the source material it's just hilarious because of Stallone's terrible acting, laughable delivery and of course, "yU bEtRaY tHa LAaAaAwWwWWWw!"

  • Drakesy on 03/08/2023 - 17:36
    +3

    Who else will delay you for 15 minutes forcing you to keep browsing and buy stuff?

    NGL Genius business move

    • djkelly69 on 03/08/2023 - 17:49
      +2

      I literally can't think of a single time I have been waiting for a prescription to be filled and impulse-bought something off the chemist shelves while waiting.

      • Nugs on 04/08/2023 - 07:04
        +5

        Not even jelly beans?
        .

        • MonkDog on 05/08/2023 - 01:23
          +1

          Well, no, jelly beans when visiting a chemist are a given and not an impulse buy. GLUCOSE!

      • capslock janitor on 06/08/2023 - 22:04

        Now I mostly just stand there zoning out/staring into space, around the collection counter.

        • Antikythera on 06/08/2023 - 23:27

          i drop my script in, ask for an ETA, set a timer, go do my shopping at the supermarket, timer usually goes off just as I'm about to check out anyhow, walk into the chemist to get my script wheeling my trolley, then go to bakers delight, then my car to go home.

          i thought everybody did this.

          • capslock janitor on 07/08/2023 - 08:18

            @Antikythera: If I have shopping planned then yes. But usually done separetly.
            Otherwise it's window shopping but that gets boring

            Also depends on which CW I go to, some are within shopping centres, but the main 2 I go to are standalone stores without supermarkets around unless you walk outside and back, which by that time the meds would been ready anyway

            So zoning out it is! waiting for the sole thing I came there to do to be done.

      • bobbified on 06/08/2023 - 23:01
        +1

        I remember once standing there waiting… and then picking up 4 of them vicks inhalers for stereosonic the next day!

        • Drakesy on 06/08/2023 - 23:04
          +1

          "I just have a really stuffy nose"
          eyes severely dilated

  • outlander on 03/08/2023 - 17:40
    +7

    Seems like their only purpose is to keep people in store to buy other crap.

    It does appear that way. I think they are 99% a legacy establishment. 100 years ago, they serve a function in measuring out doses and such. Now they only seem to exist as gatekeepers. All they've ever done for me is make me wait and get in my way, but all in all that doesn't amount to much, and conceivably they might provide some benefit to those lower on the intellectual ladder. Small as their role might be, if they didn't exist it would fall on doctors, and their time is more valuable (pharmacists get paid shit all)

    • garddn on 04/08/2023 - 08:51

      Exactly what i think is the situation

  • freefall101 on 03/08/2023 - 17:44
    +12

    Ignoring hospitals and any other roles, just focusing on the Chemist Warehouse pharmacist, a lot of what they do is repetitive. But that's like a GP, they have to see 500 people a year who have a cold and need to be told they have a cold and they can't have antibiotics. Most of it is pretty straight forward, what they're skilled in is catching the bits that aren't.

    A doctor doesn't always know what other medicines and things you're taking, and they're not great at talking through side effects and multiple drugs. They can also help with non-prescription medicines and things, they're a good place to go if you have a bad rash, they're qualified to do vaccinations, they understand all the billing side of things, it's a mix of a job. I'd trust a pharmacist if I was taking multiple drugs more than a doctor on the impact.

    Plus I used to see an old as shit doctor who'd prescribe things that weren't right anymore and the pharmacist caught them a couple of times. Changed doctors after that happened more than once.

    • GordonD on 03/08/2023 - 18:39
      +4

      A doctor doesn't always know what other medicines and things you're taking

      If you have a regular GP they would. Its their job to. A pharmacist would only pick it up if you have a regular chemist you always go to. And go to often enough that they remember you. The sort of people who wouldn't have a regular GP probably also wouldn't have a regular chemist shop.

      • jjjaar on 03/08/2023 - 23:02
        +2

        I go to a few doctors: one main GP, another GP for med certs and evening visits, and a few specialists. My GP may not know what my specialists have prescribed. And unless I tell them, my specialists definitely don’t know what my GP has prescribed.

        I go to chemist warehouse. I have one main store, but there’s another 3 that I do visit (nearer to a specific specialist or close to work etc). I filled a script from a specialist at one and they’ve asked “are you still taking XYZ?” which was given to me by my GP and I’d never filled it at that store before.

        They were able to warn me about possible interactions in those two drugs, something the specialist didn’t know about, even after letting them know I was taking XYZ.

        So yeah, while people may not have a regular chemist, it’s possible they’ll still stick with one brand and get the same benefit.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join