• sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    15 hours ago

    You’re right:

    Under the bill, a prescriber can write a prescription for off-label use of a drug as long as they have the patient’s permission,

    They are not required to administer off-label medication if they have an “objective, good faith, and scientific” objection to the drug being used for anything other than what it is intended for, or if a pharmacist has documented that a patient is allergic to the drug or it could cause a life-threatening drug interaction.

    • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      14 hours ago

      “objective, good faith, and scientific” objection to the drug being used for anything other than what it is intended for

      That should be a fair standard, except that this is legislation being pushed specifically because objective, good faith, scientific objections were preventing people from getting the ineffective treatments they wanted after embracing right wing conspiracy theories and rejecting actual medical advice. Because this is a requirement and not merely a shield for those doctors who do choose to prescribe a requested medication, the determination for what is and is not a valid objection is not left to the doctor but to whatever body would be adjudication a dispute.

      The article doesn’t say what the potential penalty is for refusing, so I’m not sure if this is something that could result in criminal charges, lawsuits, or which might come up on malpractice cases. But I know I wouldn’t want my future to be dependent on my ability to convince a judge and/or jury that my objections are sufficiently grounded in science. Especially not in a state where a majority have seemingly decided that they know more about medicine than doctors and scientists.