[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 50.16.107.222. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
August 27, 1973

Antitussives in Jeopardy

Author Affiliations

Skokie, Ill

JAMA. 1973;225(9):1122. doi:10.1001/jama.1973.03220370060027

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor.—  In reply to your EDITORIAL (224:621, 1973), I am in agreement with some of the concepts expressed by Dr. William R. Barclay.If the federal government wishes to decide which medicines the physician will use, how the usage will be ascertained, and which drugs will be approved, then it does seem redundant, expensive, time consuming, and unnecessary for doctors to have the very complex training that they have.It is indeed unfortunate that, as Dr. Barclay states the FDA, the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and the public are, therefore, placed in a difficult situation. Preparations in long and general use, generally harmless, and significantly beneficial as judged by physician and patient experience must, under act of Congress, be either withdrawn, reformulated, or relabeled.Could it be that the act of Congress is one that needs reformulation and amendment?It does seem rather inconsistent that safe but

×