I'm curious to see what doctors will write on the prescriptions, when they want to indicate the brand of the drug and not simply the molecule. In fact, according to the Maxi-amendment to the Development Decree (today there are no more laws whose name has to do with the content), the original rule which required the doctor to indicate only the name of the molecule is corrected. After a long tug of war, a compromise was reached: the doctor will be able to indicate the brand, but will have to justify the choice. Compromises, you know, rarely involve compelling logic. In fact, what will the poor doctor be able to write? Strictly speaking, the motivation should be scientific in nature and state that this drug has proven to be more effective than its generic equivalents, in a study, for example, published in the New England Journal of medicine. But I find it difficult: such research is rare and often contradictory. Easier could be a psychological motivation. There are, for example, elderly patients who have been taking the same drug for years and who may find themselves disoriented with different packages and pills than usual. But, while acknowledging to experienced doctors a certain psychological practice, this form should be admitted only for psychiatrists. I propose to simply be honest. And since doctors are very fond of acronyms (they write PO, which means "per os", i.e. by mouth, orally, and someone still writes TID, «tris in die», i.e. three times a day) I suggest DINIF: which means «I decide and not the pharmacist». Which, mind you, may have some basis.
Richard Renzi
Page 51 - (09 December 2012) - Corriere della Sera
