AMA Submission to Podiatry Board of Australia on Guidelines for Endorsement for Scheduled Medicines

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Interesting read here.

Some of the sanctimonius classics are worth highlighting;

(my favourite)

(and vice versa?, quid pro quo?)

(how do these two sentences fit together?)

(yes, let's keep the subordination of other professions going like in the good old days)

(say what?)

(oh, because only real doctors would never abuse this privilege?)

Clearly 'Doctor' knows best. Same old negative waffle, must be a 'copy and paste' job from the nurse practitioners and midwives submission.

LL

 

Another massive fail on behalf of the AMA.

This is a chance to work together for the betterment of patients, not an opportunity for grand-standing on their behalf. Their submission simply goes to prove how out of touch with Podiatry they really are.

Our profession saves lives. Full stop. How about the AMA cut the leash and let us do our jobs properly.

On the other hand if they would like us to assimilate I would be happy to pay an annual fee to join their ranks: on second thoughts, maybe not!

 

Its very similar to the submission the the AMA(Vic) made to try and block the prescribing rights here in Victoria. Their submission went nowhere; was pretty much totally rejected by the Govt; ... ie they lost....I guess they learnt nothing from that experience.

Now with national registration, they want to take the fight nationally.

They now behaving like the little boy who lost the game and wants to take the ball home afterwards. They need to get over it and move on. ... and get their own house in order before throwing stones (and they were the exact words an official in Dept of Health used when I was talking to him about this!)

 

6Minutes are carrying a story on this:
http://www.6minutes.com.au/articles/z1/view.asp?id=526237

 

We should be thanking them! Look at this gem:

What have we been doing for the last zillion years? No wonder govt officials take no notice of their arguments! They are being seen for what they are.

The battle has been fought. They lost. Its now all about the best way to implement it. Someone forgot to read the right memo before they wrote that submission.

 

The Australiandoctor have just tweeted about this:

http://twitter.com/australiandr/statuses/11995787135287296

 

Just like the great job that the AMA and the Medical Council are doing at protecting patients. igs: I like the comment above about getting their own house in order first.

That argument was used in the submissions from the AMA(vic) and along with a lot of dirty tricks and lobbying behind the scenes. The legislation was passed and their efforts failed. Now they still trying to roll out the same old same old that was not accepted last time. They have to be very naive to think that it will work this time as well.

 

A little more balance and detail from the Australian Doctor:

 

Of course the hysterical and knee jerk reaction from medical practitioners sick of nurses, pharmacists and now podiatrists stepping on the sacred turf of prescribing are demonstrated with the usual vigour:

and

or

See what we are dealing with here...

LL

 

I love how some of there response is to

I recall similar tirades when the Medicare EPC plan was debated.

 

Thanks Tony,

Those quotes made my day!!!

Anyhow, I must get back to asking my local GP to prescribe all my cases of fasciitis oxycodone - cos that will help!

 

And these people were allegedly bright enough to get into medicine :bang: They are so blind that they can't see the writing on the wall.

They keep throwing up the "patient safety" argument to protect turf and yet other professions keep getting access to more and more medicine as the Govt keeps rejecting their arguments. The Govt makes the decisions when they have all the information in all the submissions before them and take advice from a whole range of sources. They then have repeatedly rejected the AMA's position. When will they get it that they are wrong?

 

But I bet the ones complaining are potentially:

a) Not even medical doctors

b) the same ones that when someone comes in with an ingrown toenail they try and fix it themselves with a short course of oral cephalexin because "that will fix it"

c) are the same ones that don't share the same complaint about dentistry and vets using the title doctor/surgeon or prescribing scheduled drugs.

Go figure!

 

I remember the same arguments put up by the AMA in the late 70s when our profession tried to improve our sevice to the general public. It was and always will be about them (AMA) and not the treatment afforded the public.
Time and time again they have demonstrated that they are not prepared to accept any cooperation in the holistic treatment of patients at all it is always the Doctor knows best well we know the truth.

 

The AMA is the 'union' representing medical practitioners in Australia. Of course they are always going to take a stance against other health providers encroaching on what is traditionally their 'turf'. The job of the AMA is to protect the conditions, most importantly the income source of its members. But of course they're not going to come out and say it's about money and status, so they will always resort to 1) it is not safe for the public; and 2) nobody is as well trained / educated as a medical practitioner to prescribe scheduled drugs.

And this probably doesn't differ to podiatrists and the associations, unions / boards representing podiatrists. How many times have podiatrists on this very site criticised and demanded that their relevant bodies lobby to have non podiatrists prevented from doing what has traditionally been the domain of podiatrists. Imagine the comments on here from (some) podiatrists if tomorrow chiropractors decided to run a short course on sharp debridement, diabetic foot assessments and nail surgery that would then allow them to start doing these procedures. No doubt many podiatrists would demand that their relevant representative bodies publicly oppose any such move by chiropractors. And I have no doubt the argument would be fought would be along the lines of "podiatrists are better educated regarding foot care than chiropractors...and this is likely to lead to a decrease in standards and patient safety...".

In the end it's all just politics. Most likely the majority of medical practitioners coudn't care less whether or not podiatrists are allowed to prescribe a handful of scheduled drugs. And on the other hand there are probably a significant number of podiatrists out there who think that the AMA makes some very valid points in relation to prescribing by podiatrists.

 

As aparently will washing Diabetic wounds with saline solution daily and leaving it open to the air as one of my clients was recently told by her GP...."she'll be right":deadhorse: igs:

 

I'm sure all podiatrists can cite examples of poor management by GP's in relation to a range of foot care issues as I'm sure all GP's can cite examples of poor management by podiatrists (or other health professionals). It really becomes a petty argument when we (all health profesionals) start using individual cases to support our arguments.

How many podiatrists out there still routinely 'prescribe' tea tree oil for onychomycosis for example?

 

I do that with my fasciitis cases as well - just in case



In all seriousness, we are forgetting the fundamental element here - the patient. Its not about our income, its not about the GP's income, its not about the AMA's politics, it is about the patients well being.

A medical practitioners core business is not prescribing drugs - it is caring for the patient. End of story, this is why the AMA's argument will always fail.

I think Jason Warnock and the Board have done a great job in obtaining, implementing and commenting on this issue in the press so far. The Board (and members of it like Jason) are a credit to this profession!

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately) depending on how you look at it health care is about politics and it is also about income. And it's not just the AMA's politics it's our politics as well, the AMA are just better at playing politics than podiatrists are (more numbers, money, history, influence etc).

If podiatry wasn't about income how do you justify charging patients $600+ for a pair of orthotics that cost $100 (or thereablouts) to make?

Whilst most people working in health care are concerned for their patient's, it is naive and untruthful to suggest that money, politics and other factors don't have a significant influence. Unless of course you are one of those rare people that does all your medical work vountarily.