Talk:Pharmacist

Do NOT combine with pharmacist entirely

I see a note that this combination has been proposed. Although a Dispensing Chemist and a Pharmacist is essentially the same thing in the United States, it seems to me that the variation in usage in the different English speaking countries is widespread enough to justify a small article. There should be a note, explaining that the words refer to the same profession, but also discussing the differences in usages and their historic derivation. Although Pharmacist, Chemist, Druggist, and even Apothecary, are currently all used interchangeably in the U.S., this has not been the case throughout history, and may not be the case across the English speaking world where differences in law, licensing, and practice may have brought shades of meaning. Even if all this ground is covered in a single grand article, a stub explaining this should be left, in my view.

I am in favour of the merge from Dispensing chemist. I think a normal redirect will be sufficient if the content is moved here.--Boson 00:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on education

My sister's currently in the pharmacy program at Drake. As I understand it she has to complete a four year under graduate program (she's a senior this year). Then there's three more years beyond that, followed by an internship. And because its a combined program, I think the senior year the students have both undergrad and grad classes. I'm not sure how the rest of the programs here in the US are structured, if they're similar to Drake's or not. So if what I had down isn't accurate, please feel free to change it.

Thanks
172.173.40.40 23:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Persistent link spamming

There are one or more spammers hitting this (and other drug-related) pages persistently from the 80.58.* IP range.

Trying To Be A Pharmacist

I Just Want To know If There Any Way To Learn How To Be A Pharmacist In Six Years Is There Any Possible Way Please Write A.S.A.P. If Any Information About It!

An explanation R. Ph. should be included

I know that R. Ph. stands for Registered Pharmacist. An info about that should be included in this article, but I don't know enough about the subject to do that myself properly. Thank you for adding that :-)

Berny 10:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current revision fixes this. Heyyou20 05:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my two cents

Every state and province has a licensing body of pharmacists. In my province, it's the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association, but I think the term, Collge of Pharmacists, is more common in both sides of the border. These licensing bodies can grant licenses and produce bylaws and regulations. The use of words like, pharmacist, dispensing chemist, druggist, etc., are regulated by these organizations. Only those who are registered with these organization can call themselves pharmacists. The postnominal, R.Ph., really doesn't have any meaning because if one can call himself a pharmacist, he must be registered. There is no unregistered pharmaist. The use of this postnominal is to identify that the person is a pharmacist. It's pretty much same as using M.D. for medical doctors or R.N. for nurses.

Why do we still need pharmacists?

In the United States, retail pharmacists make starting salaries of USD 90,000 to 120,000 straight out of pharm school (no residency needed, just summer internship)... to do what? dispense pills that my doctor prescribed and to read out loud the computer-generated warning label that is automatically printed with my prescription? This isn't the 1950s anymore, and nearly every other doctorate program in the States require some sort of postgraduate training (with tiny salaries of USD 30,000).

Retail pharmacists are an out-dated profession, their existence was only needed when doctors in the past only diagnosed and did not prescribe. But people later discovered that health care was drastically improved when the doctor both diagnosed and prescribed for the patient. Today, drug interactions and allergies could be just as easily checked and cross-referenced electronically at a doctor's office or by the hospital staff.

Some zealous retail pharmacists even have the galls to refuse a woman's valid prescription for Plan B purely on a sense of moral righteousness, ignoring both the woman's and her physician's demands. So why do we still need retail pharmacists? And why are they making that much money at Walgreen's dispensing pills and reading from a computer monitor? Pharmacists should go the way of typists, and slowly die off as a prevalent and independent profession. --67.39.184.33 10:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate pharmacists. They get paid a professional salary to operate a cash register and hand me a pillbox (which usually takes about 20 minutes from their technicians). Pharmacists are not needed anymore. There are cheaper and safer ways to ensure that people get the drugs they are supposed to get. Those that want personal assistance with the drugs should pay for it, rather then forcing the rest of us to prop up this bureaucratic niche in the midst of skyrocketing healthcare costs. I do not think it ought to be legal for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for personal reasons. Thats between me and my doctor. This is not the only context in which I have seen this kind of thing occur. Pharmacists should not be empowered to exercise their personal whims over people's healthcare. Naus 04:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacists are there to help. They have to go through a rigorous academic program, and although they might not have to use this academic knowledge in retail pharmacy, they will have the ability to answer questions or clarify answers that doctors may or may not have provided to us, the patients. As in any profession, there exists a spectrum of quality amongst pharmacists.

- Pharmacists are drug healthcare professionals. Pharmacists in the UK spend a hefty amount of time at university specifically studying drugs. Doctors prescribe, but pharmacists specialise in patient reviews and drug courses. Pharmacists consult with doctors in hospitals and recommend certain drugs to prescribe certain patients. Some pharmacists specialise in certain diseases, giving them knowledge far beyond that of a doctor when it comes to patient care. You're talking about machines dispensing and advising -- why don't machines diagnose too? Conflicting symptoms? Bullshit. The machine could ask a variety of questions to seperate the factors and even take samples (such as saliva) and automatically put that in a box to be posted to a lab where it could be tested and the patient could be contacted regarding the results. In the event of a referral, the computers could cross-reference nearby specialists and refer the patient. What's the main downside of all of this? No professional advise, lack of expertise, and oversimplification of patient care. People who think pharmacists spend their time packing boxes and sticking labels are fucking retarded. Schizmatic 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I apparently deleted your last comment, but somebody put it back. It was completely unintentional. Since it was the last entry, I suspect a software glitch, though I may have done something wrong.

- - Pharmacists are trained in the appropriate use of medication for specific patients with specific conditions. When a patient has multiple disease states and multiple physicians it is often only the pharmacist who can recognize drug interactions and therapy duplications. Pharmacists are also educated to recognize the most important counseling points to discuss with patients to maximize their drug therapy based on the patient's specific case, rather than just read aloud computer generated generalized information. Alerting physicians to overlooked drug allergies and improper dosing of drugs is also a role of a pharmacist. Most pharmacy school programs include at least 2 semesters of full-time externship (clinical rotations) in the final year of the curriculum. This is in addition to the intern hours students acquire during the summers and after-school. The salary of a pharmacist is directly related to the cost of education required, the high level of stress and liability, and the shortage of others choosing to take on the role. Pharmacists are professionals. Like other professionals they are entitled to exercise judgement as to what medication they feel is appropriate to dispense. Lawyers and medical doctors have a choice when it comes to what client or patient they want to defend or treat. Pharmacists are also entitled to this choice. Pharmacists could not be replaced with a computer any more than a doctor could be replaced with a computer program that analyzed lab tests and symptoms then used a flow chart to determine the diagnosis and the first line treatment.66.189.233.206 09:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link

The link to the list of worldwide pharmacy schools was broken. I fixed it. (Jes so ya know.) WiiWillieWiki 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]