The International Pharmacy Association of British Columbia (IPA BC) is calling on the federal government to recognize that co-signing prescriptions is unnecessary. IPA BC has released a Position Paper that calls for abolishing the requirement that Canadian doctors co-sign prescriptions issued by American physicians.
The Position Paper also reviews the considerable economic benefits of the international pharmacy industry in Canada and advocates a more supportive environment. It is available at www.bcipa.com.
Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal Minister of Health, has recently made statements threatening to shut down the industry, which employs an estimated 4,000 Canadians directly and many more indirectly. He admitted to CTV news, and on American broadcast televsion on the weekend that U.S. President George W. Bush had raised the issue with Prime Minister Paul Martin during his recent visit to Ottawa.
"Mr. Dosanjh alleges it's unethical for doctors to co-sign prescriptions issued by U.S. physicians," said Dr. Paul Zickler of IPA BC. "The fact is it's a federal regulation that requires co-signing. We think it's an unnecessary and artificial barrier to Canadian trade with the United States, and we call on the Liberal government to abolish it for the benefit of all Canadians."
Dr. Zickler added, "Health Canada itself says the cross-border trade in pharmaceuticals is an important business and is permitted under Canada's domestic laws and international trade obligations. The Liberals should stand up for Canada and the economic value of the international pharmacy business, and not give in to U.S. pressure."
The Canadian Democratic Movement, a non-profit watchdog organization that promotes Canadian sovereignty, agreed. "It's ironic to see Dosanjh, a former NDP premier from B.C., supporting the position of George W. Bush and the multi-national drug companies. We don't want Canada getting the short end of the stick again, like on softwood lumber and beef," said the organization's Executive Director, Roy Whyte. "Let's put Canadians first this time around."
Bush is responding to pressure from drug manufacturers that are opposed to American citizens having access to lower-priced Canadian pharmaceuticals. Canadian drug prices are controlled, unlike those in the U.S., where drug companies can charge higher prices that many patients, especially the elderly, cannot afford. "It's really a question of drug company profit," said Dr. Zickler.
"The government has said there's no evidence of supply problems in Canada. Besides, the federal government controls prices and the patent protection it gives to multi-national drug companies. If those companies try to put the squeeze on Canada, the federal government should squeeze them back," said Dr. Zickler.
Further reading on this subject: On The Eve Of Bush's Visit Is Another Canadian Industry Under Threat?
Stumble It!
Sure, the system is to blame. Drugs cost too much. However:
1 - It's a American problem.
2 - We can supply more than they are admotting, but Glaxo or Pfzier can simply cut off access to Canadians if they feel the needs to---it sucks but you know.
3 - We could never allow it to get too big,as the U.S. is simply too large.
4. It is 100% unethical for a pharmacist to fill a prescription for patient they will never see. Even if it is co-signed, the risk of drug interactions and other issues is there.
5. Our online pharmacies are vulnerable to counterfeit drugs and organized crime.
6. These online pharmacies are about one main thing--big houses and cars. Nothing else. Don't let them tell you they are saving anybody--this is a problem only America can solve.
However, if this isn't hurting Canadians, e.g., our pharmacies are bare because all the medication is southwards bound, and it is providing some jobs here, would we not benefit more by taxing medication headed over the border and using the money to fund (public facility, e.g. Brazilian model) drug research here?
Leaving ourselves at the mercy of 'for-profit' drug companies is not to my mind desirable. Rather than funding 'drug plans' that do nothing but put public funds into private pockets, it may be more desirable to have drug manufacturing within the public domain.
Gosh, hope I'm not throwing gas on the fire.
---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).
Deplete Canadian supply through US customers effectively destroying the market and re supply from US at US prices.Won't happen overnight but the writing is clearly on the script.
There is and can not be a supply shortage in Canada. If the companies that hold the patents want to deny supply, Canada withholds the right to have our own generic makers supply said drug(s).
Any potential supply problem - which has never happened - would only come about because of the multinational companies withholding supplies.
Here we have Canadians who have found a way to make money and they are under attack because they do it too well. If the people of the United States cannot get medication at costs they can afford they should be able to look elsewhere. And that is the main point - if we shut them down here, they will move elsewhere and supply that countries drug makers and citizens much needed jobs and $.
Ethics - it is not unethical what they do. Issue a prescription based on another doctors findings. It happens every day in Canada outside of that industry.
Don't be fooled by the calls of ethical breachs or short supplies - it is a game being played by the multinational drug companies to keep prices high in the US. If US citizens cannot look to Canada or elsewhere for a cheap supply, the US companies then have a captured client that will HAVE to pay what they demand.
Some of Bush's largest campaign donors - and that of most US politicians are the US drug makers. they dont give so much money for no reason at all. they expect their industry to be sheltered and given whatever advantage it can not matter the cost.
This is a U.S. problem, and yes, it is unethical to co-sign prescriptions without contacting the original physician--which they don't. It Is unlikely to matter in most cases, but some drugs cannot be sent throught the mail anyway, and those controlled substances can react with many other drugs, so it's the job of the Canadian government to worry about the rare case, not most cases where it doesn't matter. It's also the Canadian government's job to worry about our supply, not another coutnry.
I agree that they can easily keep up with supply, but still, we are stuck with corporate governments--it will affect our supply.
I did however find the interview on CPAC funny where one women complained that "the borders were too crowded" due to the busloads of Americans coming here to buy drugs.......aren't we looking for tourists?