Medicin e
the signature binding?
ue Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is 19'11; in force supported by the pr,"' regulations and most general le:ctitioners will have studied at cr;'st extracts or summaries of this ai-,IPPlicated legislation which 4.'8 to control the issue of drugs 1, addiction, of habit-forming th'tikg:n and of others which have
LOU therapeutic value.
ifPeaking generally, the Act %Presents a welcome advance on %Predecessors. The only obvious ofW, consists of the non-inclusion oarbiturates which are both li,Ldhe,IY used and significantly 't-forming. An unusual feature filY of separate comment, ti,rvever, is that prescriptions for e•opium derivatives and sti
mulants or pep pills, now have to be written in their entirety in the doctor's own handwriting. Not only do the quantities and doses have to be handwritten both in words and figures, but so do details of the patient's name and address and date of issue. Unless this is done, the prescription is illegal and the chemist may not • dispense it. This raises an entirely new and unique principle which is that the signature of a document is by statute no longer sufficient evidence that the signatory has approved its total contents. By implication, the fact that a document has been merely signed, no longer makes the signatory responsible for the text. Some interesting and complicated problems could arise if this principle were to be extended to the legal profession and into the realms of finance.
The concept that it doesn't count unless you write it all out, as well as signing it, is probably not so much an expression of lack of confidence in the medical signature, but rather another example of a general deterioration of standards and a departure from our innate belief in the importance of personal responsibility. This is seen in the tendency of government increasingly to regulate individual action and control it in detail rather than to leave decision to personal honour and commonsense; after all, we no longer flog juvenile offenders for outrageous anti-social activity and we are therefore conditioning our younger generation to believe that there is no special merit in self-control and no special swift penalty to be paid for gross transgression.
Indeed, the •whole widespread problem of drug dependence is in essence part of this picture. We are taught daily that the govern ment will take care of us from cradle to grave and that there is a government department for sol ving or dealing with each of the common problems of life. Is it so surprising, therefore, that under
conditions of stress people tend to turn to the doctor for tablets rather than to accept stress itself as a necessary and inevitable part of the game of living? Is it so surprising that the doctor in such a society tends to find himself swept along with the majority view and, by handing out too many stress relieving tablets, in the end destroys the ability of the individual to survive in a hostile environment?
Our fathers used to believe that money could only be transferred from their bank accounts if they signed a cheque or an order for a specific sum, but we are now content to allow computers to pay our bills for us. We are no longer jealous of our personal ivsponsibilities. Even the lollypop men at childrens' crossings seem to have lost aim and appear to be bent on sapping self-reliance and individual power of decision. As soon as a child approaches the crossing they stride forward and hold up the traffic, so that children are being conditioned from an early age to act in the expectation that authority will protect them, rath er than lining up wisely at the kerbside and selecting a safe and appropriate moment to cross the road under the guidance and restraint of the lollypop man. It may well be that the Misuse of Drugs Act is simply another expression of modern conditioning. We may yet live to see the dismal day when all our decisions will be made for us, when no signatures will count for anything'and none of us will be able any longer to stand on his own two feet.
Previous page
