E-DRUG:Medical doctors & belief in brand names (6)
The utility or foolishness of brand names in prescribing has been debated
since the 1950s, at least in the U.S, Many products have brand names of
course, and those names help distinguish one product from another quite
specifically. Thus we may set out to buy a television (generic) and because
of what we've heard or experienced about a particular firm, we may give one
trademark (SONY) the inside track. Of course our final choice is likely to
involved a review of various where the drug lobby had pushed through
legislation, state after state, requiring every Rx for, say, Pentids be filled
with the Squibb name. At the time, it seemed that the laws were mostly
anticompetitive in effect, through there were the occasional reports of grungy
garage laboratories where those shadowy generics emerged almost like counter
band rum brought in by speedboats from Noriega-land.
prohibiting pharmacists filling a scrip for "Darvon" provide rospoxhemine.
At the time, For me, reliance on generic terminology by prescribers requires
an assumption that every formulation of the needed drug is interchangeable
with every other. That assumption requires a massive leap of faith in a world
where the existence of uniform cross-national good manufacturing practices are
far from certain. Add the increased incidence of flat-out counterfeiting, and
confidence that every formulation of, say, amoxicillin, is the equal of all
others requires a level of faith I'm not willing to grant.
James B. Russo
146 Koenig Rd.
Bernville, PA 19506
610 488 9060
484 269 6470 (mobile)