This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John C. Ballin, PhD

JAMA. 1975;234(12):1257.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The numbers game on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) apparently has not run its course. We continue to witness wild public statements of purported morbidity and mortality caused by ADRs. As has already been pointed out, ADRs are an inevitable consequence of medical practice.¹ The aim of good therapy, therefore, is to decrease ADRs to the irreducible minimum. Yet, many critics of the medical profession seem to imply that, given a system of closer surveillance of therapeutics, the ADR problem could be eliminated altogether. As every physician knows, this is nonsense.

A basic tenet of good scientific problem-solving is to identify the problem, determine its extent, and then advocate remedial measures. That a problem of preventable ADRs exists cannot be denied; the literature abounds with references to the prescription of the wrong drug or dose, to unforeseen drug interactions, or simply to the administration of a drug when none was . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Director AMA Department of Drugs

Footnotes
Address editorial communications to the Editor, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago 60610

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?