I've just found out why antibiotic resistance has become such a threat to mankind. On the BBC's Today this morning a medical general practitioner interviewee was commenting on the threat, and this is what I heard, verbatim as near as I can remember: 'Well even though a patient's condition doesn't warrant a prescription for an antibiotic, it's hard not to prescribe it for them if they ask for one.'
Several years ago I had the flu and was seeing a doctor for that. She asked if I wanted an antibiotic. I said, "Isn't this a viral thing? Won't the antibiotic be useless?" She sort of shrugged and said yeah but everyone wants it.
Was antibiotic resistance the topic of the show? If so, was the doctor asked if he thinks there is a risk in prescribing antibiotics?
The item was about the threat - the 'risk' to use your word? - of antibiotic resistance . . . why else would they have been discussing it? I don't see the point of your second question, but the interviewee was a professor of medicine and not a practitioner.
What I'm asking is, when the interviewee said what you quoted them as saying, if it was such an outrageous thing to say, were they challenged on that at all? Where did the conversation go next? Did your opening post not say that they were a "medical general practitioner?"
Yes it was challenged by the interviewer, and with a large dollop of incredulity. But that's how ridiculously PC this country has become - in this particular instance, the practicing doctor would obviously know that an antibiotic isn't the right thing to prescribe but dares not refuse in case the patient complains, which means the poor bloody doctor will have to face a tribunal inquiry of his/her peers - as if our hard-pressed GPs don't have enough to do with an added 4 million patients who've arrived on these shores in as many effing years. Yes it did - I guess I could have mentioned the interviewee was 'a professor of medicine who is a member of an ethics board of a governing body of professional practitioners' but didn't think it was that important a matter to be worth elaborating upon because it wouldn't have altered the facts of the subject in any material way.
Well it's only our chav classes who are prepared to make an appointment for a cold because A) they can kill an hour or so of their unproductive day chatting to genuine patients in a practice waiting room and B) it makes them feel good to be the centre of attention for 10 minutes. That's how feckless they are. If they had to pay for an appointment they'd think of something else to do to while away the time.
That's why catastrophic only policies bring down costs. Real customers exchanging real money always brings down costs. Lots of money being wasted and lots of bugs being made resistant thanks to treating viruses with antibiotics.
I used to work in a Public Health Department and that was my observation as well. The clientele would make appointments for ridiculous trivia like colds simply because they liked having a place to go during the day, they could chat up friends in the waiting room who were also there with trivial concerns and just have a fun time. Since it was free, there was no incentive to use their time productively.
I agree. If you just made their copayment for appointments 15 dollars the majority of them would think twice before coming in for something they probably don't really need. That's only a tiny percent of what it actually costs but we're talking about incentives here. Or maybe they only get one free appointment every 8 months, and if they want to come in for something they can get a routine check up at the same time.
It's often the case that these 'useless eaters' have more disposable income than those who actually work to pay them their benefits. Is that bizarre or what? Probably why they don't bother to find work; but most are unemployable anyway, so I guess it all works out in the end. Welcome to the madhouse of the world.