ArticleJournal of medical ethics1998
Supply of medicines: paternalism, autonomy and reality.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to Regulate the Right to Self-Medicate.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2022Article
- Rational use of paracetamol among out-patients in a Bhutanese district hospital bordering India: a cross-sectional study.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- Key stakeholder perspectives on the barriers and solutions to pharmacy practice towards complementary medicines: an Australian experience.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2017Article
- Exploring the supply of non-prescription medicines from community pharmacies in Scotland.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2008Article
- Exploring consumer and pharmacist views on the professional role of the pharmacist with respect to natural health products: a study of focus groups.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2008Article
- Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for sickle cell disease. A study of patients' decisions.Bone marrow transplantation · 2001Article
- Primary care groups and the right to prescribe.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radical changes are taking place in the United Kingdom in relation to the classification of, and access to, medicines. More and more medicines are being made available over the counter both in local pharmacies and in supermarkets. The provision of more open access to medicines may be hailed as a triumph for patient autonomy. This paper examines whether such a claim is real or illusory. It explores the ethical and legal implications of deregulating medicines. Do patients benefit? What is the impact on pharmacists? Are the true beneficiaries of change largely the pharmaceutical industries?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.