Q Should drug dispensing and medical treatment services be separated? Having just returned to Hong Kong, I was relieved to see all drugs being identified on the plastic bags given out by doctors, and the public seemingly more aware and questioning of the drugs they are prescribed. However, progress has unfortunately not been sufficient for those who have passed away and those still receiving treatment. I have been living in Israel, and I have marvelled at the system used by several of their medical institutions. Each patient has access to a directory of all doctors under that institution, including specialists, and prescriptions are typed into a centralised database, printed out and bought by the patient at a pharmacy. This allows doctors of that institution to view drugs prescribed, eliminating the conflict of interest, pharmacists serving as double-checking agents, and prescriptions are dispensed in original packaging with inserts patients can refer to about side effects they should pay attention to. Perhaps the government can use Israel as reference. Hong Kong doctors can be tempted to prescribe those drugs they have in stock, or those that pharmaceutical companies offer a good deal on. All of which I hope is not true, though I have often seen the numerous bags of medicine dispensed on a regular trip to the doctor for flu cases. This conflict of interest is certainly not representative of the industry. What I wish to highlight is that the possibility exists. Separating the two is beneficial to both doctors and patients. Doctors will not waste time on inventory and prescribe drugs only those from big pharmaceutical companies (there may exist incentives or constraints to only purchase from those), and drugs which may be better for a specific case but not stocked. After all, we cannot expect a typical clinic to hold all types of medicine. Patients will benefit from double checking, pharmacists from job creation. Though it may result in increased prices and be less convenient, I still think it is a win-win situation. Margaret Harrison, Tuen Mun Doctors should be able to dispense medicine because it is going to be very complicated if you have to go to a pharmacy every time. It is so practical in Hong Kong. You visit your doctor and can take the medicine home. Think about the number of people who would be in the pharmacy every day; it will take a while before you are out again. On the other hand, every medicine should have a leaflet, no matter if it is a light pain killer or a heavy tranquilliser. Every patient should read the leaflet before taking the medicine. They usually say on this leaflet that even if you have used the medicine for years, you should always read it first. You never know what might have changed. People also become more aware about the side effects and precautions of certain drugs. You also might notice a mix-up if you read about the drug in the leaflet. J. Vellekoop, Tai Po It is regrettable to hear the cases of death associated with this drug mix-up. However, I think the public has put too much focus on this alleged blunder. What we should care about is the problem of dispensing drugs. Preventing doctors from dispensing drugs to patients will cause grave inconvenience to their patients. Definitely, obtaining all medical services in the clinic, including getting the drugs, is preferable for feeble patients. I think the most effective methods of avoiding such blunders is to set up stricter rules for drug dispensing in clinics and to monitor nurses and doctors more carefully. Claire Man, Diamond Hill On other matters... In constantly complaining about increased red-light penalties, the Motor Transport Workers General Union seems to be missing the point: the idea is not to punish drivers but to deter them from the reckless and dangerous driving that we all experience in Hong Kong every day. Ignoring and speeding up through traffic lights are common practices for many bus and taxi drivers here. They are concerned about their livelihoods, but if they continue to endanger lives, then maybe that particular line of work should be taken away from them. As part of its measures to improve traffic safety in Hong Kong, maybe the government should consider sending all the members of the union back to driving school. Just a few months ago, in response to the initial announcement of increased penalties, the union claimed road safety should not be the responsibility of drivers. Now they want a special early-warning system that lets them know in advance when the traffic lights will turn to red. We already have such a system - it's called the amber light. Mark Vines, Discovery Bay Can the police clarify whether motorcyclists are above the law. These motorcyclists often drive at high speed on the hard shoulder, cross double lines, especially when entering cross-harbour tunnels, and squeeze themselves between trucks and cars not only during traffic jams but also when driving at 80km/h or more. This type of driving is an accident waiting to happen and I hope I am not the motorist 'helping' them with their suicide as I do not want to have that on my conscience even if I am not to blame. If motorcyclists are not above the traffic law, then maybe the police can do something about them instead of standing by and letting them go ahead in full sight of officers. Aren't we having a campaign with 'zero accidents' as a goal? Start with this and then teach people how to negotiate a roundabout as many on the inner circle (inside lane) switch on their indicator (or not) and take the exit, while the motorist in the outer circle keeps following the roundabout. I have seen several accidents that happened this way and many more close calls. Jeffry Kuperus, Clear Water Bay We write to highlight a great danger to the citizens of Hong Kong - the availability and indiscriminate use of highly toxic pesticides. Recently, our dog, which made a long and arduous journey from the streets of Mumbai where it was dying of starvation to the 'safety' of Hong Kong, died a horrible and painful death one week after release from quarantine due to paraquat poisoning. Research led us to understand that paraquat is lethal with no known antidote, is banned in 10 countries, including Malaysia, and that it sits on the ground for up to three years with the potential to kill anyone/anything that comes in contact with it. The ease with which it is obtained is illustrated by our visits to two hardware stores asking to buy weed killer. Both times we were handed a plastic bottle filled with green liquid - one bottle we didn't touch as it had obviously been leaking. When I asked what chemical the container held, both shop assistants said it was just general weed killer. The label certainly didn't state clearly what the contents were (unless you had a magnifier handy). Both shop assistants stated that it was good stuff and that 'everybody' uses it. Calls to the AFCD confirmed that they know paraquat is lethal. They confirmed that government departments in Hong Kong use it, although they had no record or control over which department uses it. We were told that a first draft of a recommendation to ban the substance had been sent to Legco a number of years ago but seemingly legislators did not think the protection of the public from poisoning or preserving the environment was high on its agenda. This time it was Ruby who died a horrible death; next time it could be someone's child. Name and address supplied
