any medical doctor of any specialization can legally prescribe anything. that doesn't make it a good idea. a piece of supporting evidence is that the doctor's malpractice insurance may not cover any "cowboy" prescribing tendencies.
That’s fair. But I’ll note that the “General” in “General Practitioner” means they specialize in the wide range of health problems that occur frequently in the general population. That includes things like depression, anxiety, ADHD, etc.
I wouldn’t advocate you get a prescription for antipsychotics from your orthopedist, but SSRIs from a GP is probably pretty safe.
Obviously, it depends on the doctor and the symptoms. But a good GP will also refer you out to a specialist when needed. That’s a big part of their job: assessing when to call in a specialist.
If all you need is a refill on a prescription you’ve been taking for 10 years, how is that “cowboy” prescribing? Also, these are trained professionals with years of education we’re talking about, not some random dude off the street.
anti depressants (and other drugs) have side effects, both in the short term and the long. Patients who want drugs may lie. Trained professionals, yes exactly, but need to have practical experience in an area of medicine to be an effective advocate for the patient.
I can't even believe I'm having to defend this position in front of this crowd, but now many GP's dismissed the symptoms of women's post-partum depression before it become a topic of mainstream discussion on television talk shows? Doctors are not perfect and are not free from various biases, and having had experience with your particular condition is invaluable to you.
I'm arguing that in the US doctors can prescribe all medications regardless of their specialty (because it's true) and that it's not always a good idea, for example if the doctor is not familiar with recognizing the side effects which are outside of his specialty. (because that's also true) Your shrink is not going to prescribe you statins, as an example, but they could. It's important for a GP to recognize depression, but that doesn't mean they should treat depression, just as they should not give you a heart transplant.
You're arguing like something as at stake for you or you have bone to pick, I'm saying very generic anodyne things, i'm arguing for sober reasonableness.
We are talking about SSRIs here, not highly addictive substances. They're among the most prescribed drugs worldwide, I can guarantee you a GP knows very well how they work. Comparing that to a heart transplant is absurd.
> I'm saying very generic anodyne things, i'm arguing for sober reasonableness
You're saying vague things that are roughly as controversial as "water is wet" when read literally, but are out of place and tone-deaf in the context of above discussion.
This is one topic that used to surprise me but I learned better. Hackernews readers seem to be a higher percentage than typical on SSRIs. That and I think we have no idea just how many people are really on them.
There are many ways to regulate too. SSRIs are not OTC for the same reason.
There are many drugs a GP can prescribe that are just as dangerous or more so.
There is a reason SSRI are schedule 4 and not schedule 2 . They cannot kill you the same way [1]
---
[1] While there is a lot of politics in the classification and putting weed or LSD in schedule 1 is very questionable the list is generally medically accurate.
As other comments said, GPs routinely prescribe SSRIs. Moreover, it's not remotely cowboy to ensure continuity of care arising from exigent circumstances.
I didn't say it was "cowboy" which I put in quotes and you didn't, I simply said what I said, that insurers can put restrictions on doctors based on their specialties (true fact), that you (as a doctor) fear your insurer considering you to be a cowboy (also a true fact). Malpractice is something to worry about, including whoever educated you :) to look for the worst possible interpretation of what somebody says.
