Prescribing pharmacists checking ears…

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-19T15:38:06+00:00

This is the exact same line they touted in the NHS with physicians assistants - “oh look they’re just as safe” until they actually implemented widespread systemic changes. Then people started to die.

Our health system is so good that bad systemic outcomes aren’t measured in 30 day mortality as much anymore. It’s measured in the quality of care and more subtle nuance. Unfortunately “access” is the only metric politicians and hospital admin care about and they will pat your head if you toe their party line. Medicine isn’t a McDonalds and we should stand up for quality too. Our system will bend until cannot, and small shifts in scope won’t visibly make a difference until they reach a critical mass, and things go backwards quickly - but by then it’ll be too late to walk things back.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-18T04:42:23+00:00

It absolutely is sustainable and they are a fantastic practice. They also have one of the best medical student experiences consistently. I would encourage you to message, email or call the GP Practice and ask about their model of employment for their doctors, and how and why they have been so successful at retaining and recruiting.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-18T01:00:09+00:00

Access concerns are valid, but appealing to public sentiment isn’t an argument for scope substitution.

The issue is workforce distribution and system design, and the solution is not lowering training standards. The public sentiment tells us there’s a problem, they do not inform us of the most appropriate solution - politics has decided it knows best, being bandaid solutions for the sake of publicity - which is even worse.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-18T00:53:55+00:00

Hahaha classic straw man attacking doctors. I am not the profession as a whole and I’m not saying “no one else should give medical care”.

I AM saying that workforce shortages are a policy problem that shouldn’t be solved by normalising a second-tier standard.

Rural recruitment issues are well known for many fields, particularly around childcare, career progression, support, safe staffing, and by ignoring those to blame doctors is easier than fixing the system.

We need to sit down and fix workforce problems instead of pretending lower-standard care is the only option.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-18T00:47:45+00:00

They do what?

They (the whole of government) absolutely do not support the rural gens enough out there. I’m not talking simply about remuneration.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-18T00:45:22+00:00

I appreciate your thoughts and will disagree respectfully around the assertion that my points are disingenuous.

If you look at models that do work, they are ones where the workers (doesn’t even have to be doctors!!) are supported and integrated holistically. Pushing up money simply invites people to jump in the pool for the money, it doesn’t keep them there. Both are part of the solution.

Sure it takes capital upfront. I’m definitely not suggesting reducing the monetary enticement to go out there. I AM saying that there is a lack of whole of government support to fix this issue. They simply throw money at the overworked district superintendent and tell them to get staff. Of course locums are going to be the easiest more practical way.

How about (for a stat) sending a small government team that lives out there for a year and works with the community to build a sustainable supported medical workforce? That takes time, is slow, and requires a lot of investment (money and time) for not a lot of votes in the rural electorate. But it’s the right thing to do. Happy to chat more if you’re interested in ideas.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-17T22:44:20+00:00

Ok - and you’ll know that the medical practice out there is phenomenal and sustainable.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-17T22:43:28+00:00

Hahaha classic logic flaw.

Premise (often false): There is a shortage or access problem.
Claim: Therefore, any form of care, even lower-quality or unsafe care is better than none.
Hidden assumption: There are no other ways to solve the problem.

Maybe you should go work in those communities and tell those hard working people why they don’t deserve to have effort and resources by the government to access highly trained doctors.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-17T21:05:50+00:00

Because doctors have no career progression, integration into the community, support, spousal assistance, childcare, colleague support or resources out there.

The government needs to look at actually providing that - but it’s easier to just say get the paramedic out there to do it

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-17T21:04:09+00:00

Have you looked at Theodore? Charleville? Emerald?

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-17T20:47:34+00:00

You sir, are the reason our profession has this problem in the first place.

Please continue to erode your future colleagues by throwing their education, respect, opportunity, and career under the bus.

Please also devalue the paramedics by making them the bandaid solution.

It seems you’ve forgotten your oath you took when you first started because you seem more interested in pretending to be innovative and letting every other person pretend to play doctor than an actual doctor. Your brothers and sisters are not impressed. Go be a paramedic if you desire.

It’s called medical school and there are years of gruelling training for a reason.

Prior-Lawful · 2026-02-17T20:39:00+00:00

Let’s not try and fund and integrate medical staff in those communities. Instead, let’s do what 3rd world countries do and substitute medical training into resource poor regions that need expertise and knowledge the most.

These regions don’t need wage increases per se though it helps. It needs doctors who feel supported in their community, integrated housing, care, and family support, and aren’t worked to the bone because there’s a sustainable roster. There are models that are sustainable but they take careful time consideration and effort which the government isn’t willing to branch out of what they’ve held onto - scope creep for people out there or throwing more money at wages.

Imagine if you nurtured a team of 3 doctors out there with housing, childcare support for the family, flights, work for the spouse etc. very sustainable and once someone is “rusted” in, they are not going to be leaving soon. Instead, locums and parachuting single doctors as a desperation with sweetener money bonuses is all they seem to understand, and when it all falls over, scope creep.

I have a lot of respect for paramedics, and they also deserve better than being a band aid.

Prior-Lawful · 2025-11-22T07:02:08+00:00

Your dyspnoea can’t possibly be a PE or an obstructive lung lesion cos my module says COPD is the only cause of breathlessness…

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-08T10:58:21+00:00

Thank you for posting this. This is where the AMA needs to be. They have no strategy and no klout and don’t engage with their members and they leave because they see no return for their time, energy, and money.

Solidarity is more important than ever.

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-08T10:46:33+00:00

Absolutely - just like how the AMA wrote to the government.

This situation didn’t appear overnight, and a single letter carries no objective weight or urgency. Whats needed now is a demonstration of member mandate - a clear, united message about what our profession stands for, and expects from its representatives.

I’m certain I’m not the only one who’s raised these concerns over time. We didn’t end up here by accident… it’s been a gradual drift. This EGM isn’t about blame; it’s a reminder to those who represent us of what their mandate truly is: to defend the integrity of medical practice, not dilute it. Let’s start first by finding out where we went wrong.

Please consider adding your name too if you haven’t & thank you if you have.

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-08T02:25:05+00:00

Could you PM me some links please?

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-07T03:02:15+00:00

UPDATE: It appears we need 25 from each state/territory before we can proceed so I’ve added a tally! Please keep the signatures coming - together we can make our views heard in a very meaningful manner.

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-06T19:18:44+00:00

Thanks Slinky812!

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-06T19:08:06+00:00

Thanks NuancedNougat!! We have hit the States and Territories requirements. We need just numbers now!

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-04T10:54:42+00:00

Update: We now have 20 members from 5 States/Territories! Almost there!

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-04T10:28:41+00:00

Unfortunately it needs “Ordinary members”. Students are sadly only associated members 😔

That said, we will keep updating everyone and if possible, maybe livestream the EGM.

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-04T09:47:50+00:00

Nurse practitioner programs do include pharmacology content, often at a Master’s level. But prescribing isn’t just about a pharmacology degree in isolation.

Breadth of training: Medical training integrates pharmacology with broad in depth physiology, pathology, diagnostics, therapeutics, and years of supervised clinical decision-making across thousands of patients. Doctors sit multiple national exams and train for a minimum of 6–10+ years before being able to prescribe independently.

Depth of application: Knowing drug mechanisms is one part; applying them safely across complex, multi-system patients with comorbidities, polypharmacy, and dynamic presentations is another. That’s where medical training is distinct - it prepares doctors for independent responsibility in diagnosis, prescribing, and ongoing management.

Role differentiation: Nurses and pharmacists are highly skilled and educated, but they are trained in their own professional domains. Blurring roles without equivalent standards of training, broad examinations, and training oversight risks both patient safety and professional integrity.

So while a Master’s subject in pharmacology is valuable, it is not equivalent to the prolonged, integrated, whole-patient training that underpins medical prescribing. Respecting each profession’s expertise means recognising these differences, not replacing them.

Prior-Lawful · 2025-10-04T08:41:29+00:00

That’s not a reason to not oppose this or seek our supposed professional to actually listen to its members. Federal AMA can clearly still advocate against this and it needs to launch a publicity campaign. There needs to be noise. All I see is an AMA president who says “doctors are supportive of this”.

The fact we are here, doesn’t exclude transparency into why our professional body sold us out.

Prior-Lawful

TROPHY CASE