The Law of Generics is beneficial to the people.?

Question

This is an issue for a debate in class.

The Law of generics is something like this:

Physicians can no longer prescribe brand names of medicines instead only there generic name. This is thought to give people information as to what their options are in buying a certain kind of medicine, and to let them know there are cheaper versions of the Rx medicine of the same content. Like for paracetamol, you cant say Tempra or other brandnames but instead Paracetamol.(generic name of tempra).

Now in our debate were on the negative side, w/c means that we dont need the law or the law is neither beneficial or practical for the people. We cant think of reasons how to prove our side pls help us!!!

Answer 1

I'll answer this from the aspect of a pediatrician. Much of the medication we prescribe for our smaller patients is in liquid form. Some generic medication just tastes absolutely terrible, and the children refuse to take it. And certain brands of medicines, antibiotics in particular, taste better than others.

It is not a cost savings if a child refuses to take medicine. Sometimes you have to prescribe a specific brand.

Answer 2

Well, if you are in the US, it is already law for the pharmacy to dispense the generic unless the script specifically says 'brand necessary' or 'no substitutions' or the latin translations of those.  The customer can also request the brand name, but insurance wont pay for it unless it is specifically requested by the doctor.

Some scenarios where it would be bad to do this...   While the generics have the same active ingredients, the binders are different.  The doc may want to request a specific brand, or even a specfic generic brand/manufacturer because of the binders it has.  What if the patient is allergic to a particular binder in a generic that the brand name doesnt have?  Also, the different binders can sometimes effect absorption times.  That can come into play in things like chemo meds, antibiotics, epilepsy meds, or even something as simple as an antacid.  Or in contacts.  Contacts rx's are written to the specific brand because of the eye measurements.

The only real positives to this would be the patient *might* pay more attention to the med they are getting.  Most patients dont bother to look at what the med actually is.  For example, if you do a poll, you will find most people dont realize that say...  Loritab and Vicoden are the same thing, just different brands.  Or that Aleve has a generic called naproxen.  Or that the sleepy ingredient in *most otc sleep aids is generic benedryal (the entire advil and tylonal pm line I know for sure, and I think unisome and a couple others).

Answer 3

I don't agree that it's "negative" but for arguments sake:  (1) a brand name is easier to remember than the longer name - so if in an emergency a person needs to tell what their current medicines are, they may make a critical mistake; (2) people think that generic brands are exactly the same as brandnames when this is not true - generics are different than brandnames in potency , which can effect dosage and means that a physician has to be aware of the chemical makeup of ALL generics and could make a mistake; (3) a physician should not be mandated to treat you by expense - always thinking what is the cheapest medication for my patient; (4) brandnames are made by large companies that MUST be sure that their medications are safe and effective or else their reputation is at stake - generics can be made anywhere by anyone, so how does a patient know that the factory that made the generic is as safe as the factory of the brandname?; (5) brandnames are more expensive because the company that made the medication put millions into developing the medication, competition is great but use of generics cuts into the profits of brandnames and this may cut into the company's ability to take these profits and use them to develop other medications.