I’m assuming this is a gross simplification or misinterpretation, but I’ve seen the claim on some woo health boards and article comments that soon GPs in the UK will be able to force people to take meds based on their age. Like even if you are a 50 year old and you are as healthy as a horse you will be forced to take statins etc.:dubious:
Sounds like a misinterpretation of some of the protocols already in place in several countries.
For example, my mother was given some new meds based on age (in Spain). She was already on a lot of pills; asked “so what is this for?” “and why are you giving me a calcium supplement if as far as we know there’s nothing wrong with my bone density and anyway I already get tons of calcium from my diet?” “Nobody.” “No, there has never been anybody in my family who suffered from calcium deficiency. My mother is 98 and her bone density is perfectly fine, she’s been checked; her two sisters died in their 90s and there was nothing wrong with their bones. Both of my grandmothers died in their 90s, no broken bones. In fact, the only relative to break a bone in living memory was my nephew when he was 10.” No calcium pills for her.
Someone who just takes what the doctor orders is likely to end up with unnecessary meds because of being “in a risk group”, yes. But that’s a risk that people have in general when they happen to run into a doctor who confuses individual patients with statistic groups.
Umm, cite?
As you might have guessed, no.
There are suggestions that statins are beneficial to over-50s even if they have no history of, or high risk of, heart disease or stroke, and it was recommended earlier this year that all over-50s should be prescribed the drugs, as this would be cheaper and easier than running screening programs to identify who should be given them. Also, so the theory goes, the reduced incidence of heart disease would save money on hospital treatment, more than outweighing the cost of the drugs.
But there is a world of difference between being given an automatic prescription when your reach 50, and having Big Brother stuff pills down your throat. Nobody will be forcing anyone to take drugs they don’t want to - it just means that you would automatically be eligible for a prescription without having to see a doctor for screening.
This story broke a few months ago, and AFAIK there has been no move to implement such a programme so far.
Edit: I should add that this was just the recommendations that came out of one study, although the findings were passed on to NICE (the institute that guides the NHS on drug choices).
I found this, fwiw:
http://www.bjmp.org/content/right-consent-it-absolute
eta: not claiming it supports conjecture OP referenced, it’s just interesting
That’s a Typhoid Mary law. Those exist in the US too, don’t they?
Define “force”.
Are you seriously saying that they will send people round to the homes of everyone and hold them down and force medication into their mouths?
It just takes a second’s thought to realise that, ignoring everything else, just due to the practicalities it is an insane and completely unworkable idea.
Yup, because they’re a public health hazard. For instance, I found this summary from the state of Alaska, and a case from California where a man was temporarily jailed to ensure he took his meds, after multiple incidents of not taking it and the risk that he would become contagious. Per that article, each state has varying regulations enforcing TB treatment. (I seem to recall a similar case here in Illinois.)
Considering the severe problems with increasingly drug-resistant TB and the potential for patients who aren’t taking their meds regularly to create a drug-resistant strain in themselves, it’s a necessary step to protect the general public.
Ok sorry if my OP was vague but I was well aware how nutty the claim sounded, I figured it was crap but wondered what the kernal of truth behind it was. I assumed it was similar to “Obama is coming to steal your guns!!”.
I’m pretty certain it was a distortion of the story I linked to. Blanket prescriptions are still a rather controversial issue, and it’s kind of easy to see how that could be twisted into “OMG the socialist limeys are going to force everyone to take meds!!!11” when filtered through the crunchier, flakier side of the internet.
Yes thank you, that has to be the source of it. Sorry for the delay in replying
Yes, these days it’s usually due to TB, but if someone came down with something like ebola or smallpox there’d be to question of confining them against their will. IIRC there was a movement to confine Aids patients to sanatoria, but nothing came of it. Cuba used to (or still does?) that.
Typical tea party propaganda.
Not “everyone”. Clearly this will only apply to those whose cases have been reviewed by a death panel first.