In a pharmacy where multiple pharmacists are on shift at the same time, I think it's a reasonable accomodation to say, "OK, Bob will do those while you do something else." And you are correct about the MAP being a different situation from standard bc pills.
And honestly over time I suspect technology will replace such functions of the pharmacist.
Part of the fundamental problem in this particular situation is that regulations haven't caught up with technology. There is a shortage of pharmacists because it's a job that requires a ton of training (graduate level, I think), and yet most pharmacist jobs are mind-numbingly boring. You don't even count pills; you check the pills that the pharmaceutical assistants (or the robotic pill-counter) counted. The theory is that a well-trained pharmacist is a fail safe to catch the mistake if your doctor accidentally gives you contraindicated prescriptions, but the reality is that they spend so much time on other legally mandated tasks that they're unlikely to have time. And in any case, that can also be fixed with technology: the pharmaceutical system can pop up a warning box when you mix meds that shouldn't be mixed, and it will almost certainly work better than relying on human knowledge to remember which drugs don't go together.
There are apparently consulting pharmacists who work at hospitals, who are brought in to figure out appropriate drug cocktails for patients with specialized and complicated situations. In that role, a human pharmacist can't be replaced by a robot. But for pill-counting, the robot will probably do it better. And the robot will not get bored. And the robot could really not give two figs about your personal life.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-03-31 01:17 am (UTC)And honestly over time I suspect technology will replace such functions of the pharmacist.
Part of the fundamental problem in this particular situation is that regulations haven't caught up with technology. There is a shortage of pharmacists because it's a job that requires a ton of training (graduate level, I think), and yet most pharmacist jobs are mind-numbingly boring. You don't even count pills; you check the pills that the pharmaceutical assistants (or the robotic pill-counter) counted. The theory is that a well-trained pharmacist is a fail safe to catch the mistake if your doctor accidentally gives you contraindicated prescriptions, but the reality is that they spend so much time on other legally mandated tasks that they're unlikely to have time. And in any case, that can also be fixed with technology: the pharmaceutical system can pop up a warning box when you mix meds that shouldn't be mixed, and it will almost certainly work better than relying on human knowledge to remember which drugs don't go together.
There are apparently consulting pharmacists who work at hospitals, who are brought in to figure out appropriate drug cocktails for patients with specialized and complicated situations. In that role, a human pharmacist can't be replaced by a robot. But for pill-counting, the robot will probably do it better. And the robot will not get bored. And the robot could really not give two figs about your personal life.