You can pair it with: if it works, it's controlled. Meaning you can't get it without prescription and have to go through the tortures of a health "care" system.
I would take a pharmaceutical/drug related test (administered through the state), and it could be comprehensive; If I could renew my long term prescriptions.
The pharmacist wants to see a blood panel before refilling, fine, I should be able to order one.
(Only on long term medications (Blood pressure, diabetes, and most psychiatric drugs within reason) , and never antibiotics)
Right now American law states you need to see a doctor once a year in order to procure medications.
We all know how many times patients are brought in just to get that script. They (MD's) love the six week interval. It pays for the lifestyle.
I'm lucky if my blood pressure is checked.
And the Colon scan is something they might be mentioned while walking out the door.
My point is if you have a conscience doctor, and good insurance, by all means take advantage of it.
Many Americans don't have good insurance, but need medication.
We shouldn't have to come into pricy office visits (basically a stare down, or if he's peppy--some dubious advice) just to get a medication we have been on for years.
Now, that's in extreme cases, 2-6 weeks is the average, but levothyroxine!
A basic medication for lifelong illness with no addictive or stimulant properties.
But hey, it's free-ish. If you ignore the "potentially being without it for a few weeks" part, which can be debilitating.
Particularly for my low-income patients who end up coming into the ER for a refill (or a complication of having ran out of their meds), I’ll often write a 3 month supply and 3 refills, so giving them one year of access to their meds without needing a doctor. I still strongly encourage them to get a primary doctor and see that doctor in order to get help with their medical conditions, but the idea that we should effectively coerce patients into seeing a doctor by withholding life-saving medications (“it’s for their own good!!!”) seems grossly unethical to me, and doesn’t take into account the problems poorer people have in getting good affordable healthcare. But I’m pretty sure my position is an outlier among emergency medicine docs.
I’m hazy on the details, just have developed an app for a bank that had to do some validation on clients. But I think it is an EU rule (or perhaps Hungary only if someone were to know)
> never antibiotics
Despite the common wisdom, the issue there wasn't (mis)use in humans but rather certain agricultural practices which I understand (in the US at least) to have largely been curbed at this point. Antibiotics that were still clinically relevant in humans were being added to animal feed en masse because "reasons" (ie cost cutting of various sorts). Evolutionarily, that went about as well as you'd expect.
What I'd look into instead is how it's legally classified. My heuristic is: if it works in any meaningful way, it's classified as drug or medical equipment. Might be OTC, but it's clear about its status. Stuff that's not classified like that can at best correct some nutritional deficiencies, but typically does nothing at recommended doses (but sometimes can still hurt you if you severely overdose).
There are substances gated behind a prescription that I wish people would have easier access to - but I understand the need for regulatory control. If people selling all these fraudulent cures can dupe so many regular folks, imagine what would be happening if they were allowed to put medically relevant quantities of an active compound in them.
Aspirin and fluoride toothpaste are each pretty darn effective.
In summary, if it works, it can also kill you. That is why most medicines that work are also controlled.