E-DRUG: Pharmacists' involvement in politics (5)
--------------------------------------
To e-drug editors:
The issue of pharmacists' involvement in politics draws my attention. I found it deeming further discussion and contribution. Yes, it is a reality that politics plays a key role for the success and progress of pharmaceutical care. It gravely demands political commitment. It requires full participation and involvement of politicians. Without them, the initiation and implementation of any perfect program is not only difficult but also is unfeasible.
I hope many pharmacists have the knowledge about US FDA which has undergone through a metamorphosis historical development to reach where it is now. Today FDA is one of the world leaders in pharmaceutical regulation. Its scope is broad and its responsibilities huge. Its contribution to the public health is enormous which centers on ensuring the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs and devices. How did FDA get into this stage? Partly, it is because of committed professionals who never give up going through all the ups and downs and partly, politics played the game.
Let me cite one political example. The 1951 Durham-Humphrey amendment which took effect in 1952 by modifying the 1938 U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that, differentiates between prescription and over-the-counter medications and specifies medications that can or cannot be refilled without a new prescription was co-sponsored by former vice president of the U.S.A and senator Hubert H. Humphrey Jr. who was a pharmacist before beginning his political career and Carl Durham, a pharmacist representing the North Carolina in the U.S. House of Representative. Today many scholars of School of Pharmacies are urging their students to be politically active because they perceive the role politics plays towards the advancement of pharmaceutical care.
Why I am bringing these? The reason is simple. It is to show how politics plays a trick. So, in the final analysis, involvement of pharmacist in the political arena is crucial. I don't think non-pharmacy politician will work on behalf of pharmacists as these individuals have other priorities that help them maintain power. They focus and work hard on issues that are easy for the general public to understand and get motivated to participate in the election process.
Leave alone, non-pharmacy politicians, even members the health care community such as the medical doctors who closely work with pharmacists don't easily recognize the pharmacists' role in the health care service and as a result, don't graciously welcome changes proposed by pharmacists. They don't show their full concern in materializing policies related pharmaceutical regulations that focus on ensuring the availability drugs and devices of proven safety, efficacy and quality. They are somewhat indifferent to the drug supply management.
Therefore, it is only through the diligent, commitment and political involvement of pharmacists themselves that things could get changed. The role of pharmacists can only be played by pharmacists not by others. The pharmacist should show their efficiency and capacity to others by being directly involved in and playing the role of decision making and clinical practices and of course, if they get the opportunity to directly involve in politics like Durham and Humphrey did in the US, they have to work hard to make sure their profession gets prior attention. Â Otherwise, the implementation of programs and policies related drugs and devices will not be an easy task.
Thanks.
Gidey Amare
Ethiopian and RPh based in USA
"Gidey Amare" <gideyam@yahoo.com>