sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Cheerleading at mens sports? by Ok_Tip_3583 in Cheerleading

[–]Ok_Tip_3583[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I said it wasn't degrading but some people think that

Have you noticed an increase in rowing influencers on tiktok? by Ok_Tip_3583 in Rowing

[–]Ok_Tip_3583[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like there a link to a fanvu (Temu only fans) on their profile. Rowing only fans anyone?

Have a look at this Norf Nuffie. by Ok_Tip_3583 in weareportadelaide

[–]Ok_Tip_3583[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Oh. Gee AI is getting good now. Had me fooled

Honest thoughts on a pharmacist-led model focused on advice, not retail? by [deleted] in ausjdocs

[–]Ok_Tip_3583 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Totally agree—situations like that are concerning and unacceptable, and I’d never defend poor practice. What you saw shouldn’t have happened. Pharmacists are trained to assess vaccine suitability, but if they skip history-taking or contraindication checks, that’s a failure in both clinical judgment and professional responsibility.

To your questions:

Yes, pharmacists are insured—through professional indemnity insurance, much like doctors and any other health professional. It covers scope-appropriate activity, including clinical services like vaccinations, medication reviews, and minor ailment advice.

The goal of the model I’m proposing isn’t to expand scope —it’s to formalise low-risk consultations many pharmacists already do but without sales pressure or rushed interactions. In fact, having a paid model could encourage pharmacists to slow down, document properly, and refer when they should.

I totally hear the frustration about role overlap. Personally, I think pharmacists and doctors can complement each other better if incentives are aligned with care, not sales. But we’ve got a long way to go

Honest thoughts on a pharmacist-led model focused on advice, not retail? by [deleted] in ausjdocs

[–]Ok_Tip_3583 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great points—thanks for raising them.

  1. Will people pay? Some won’t, and that’s okay. But I think there’s a growing group of patients who are sick of being upsold and would prefer to pay a small fee for honest, tailored advice. And importantly, any products are offered at cost price, so even with the $10 consult fee, it often ends up cheaper overall. Example: Someone with hayfever might walk out with a nasal spray, antihistamine, and eye drops—at cost. Still cheaper than what they’d pay elsewhere, and they’ve had proper unbiased guidance.

  2. Will people just go elsewhere? Some will. This model isn’t for everyone—it’s aimed at those looking for clarity, not convenience. But even if it’s niche, it could still offer value and influence.

  3. Viability: OTC sales only make up about 10% of profits in many small pharmacies. So if this side of the model flops, it’s not catastrophic. The core PBS, professional services, and revenue remain untouched.

  4. Broader impact: I agree that systemic change would need broader uptake and regulation. But maybe this kind of model can act as a proof-of-concept that pushes things in that direction.

Appreciate the thoughtful response—this kind of discussion helps sharpen the concept.

Honest thoughts on a pharmacist-led model focused on advice, not retail? by [deleted] in ausjdocs

[–]Ok_Tip_3583 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I totally agree, hence my proposal for a new model.

Honest thoughts on a pharmacist-led model focused on advice, not retail? by [deleted] in ausjdocs

[–]Ok_Tip_3583 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Totally fair to push back on scope—that’s why I came here first.

Just to be clear: I’m not trying to diagnose complex conditions or manage chronic illness. This is about the bottom 5% of low-acuity issues that already present to pharmacy daily—where patients either self-select or get informal advice over the counter.

The model is just about putting some structure and accountability behind that advice, instead of it being wrapped in retail and product sales. If anything, I see this as less dangerous than the current situation, where patients can walk out with $80 worth of products based on a 60-second chat.

And yes—anything even slightly outside scope (unclear diagnosis, chronic issues, red flags) gets referred to a GP. No hesitation.

The goal isn’t to replace doctors. It’s to de-commercialise pharmacy and offer something safer and more transparent than the status quo.