You Deserve
Real Medical Care

For decades, the separation of the prescriber (your doctor) and the dispenser (your pharmacist) has been the bedrock of patient safety in Australia. Your doctor diagnoses and prescribes, your pharmacist independently checks and dispenses.

Changes now being rolled out that would allow a pharmacist to diagnose a condition, prescribe a medicine, and sell it in the same consultation. We think that independent check is worth keeping, and that patients deserve a say before it is removed.

Why Separation Matters
to Your Health

The current Australian system works because two independent professionals review your medication

The Prescriber (Doctor):

After years of comprehensive medical training, your doctor diagnoses your condition, reviews your entire history, and selects the best treatment. Your doctor has no financial stake in which medicine you are prescribed.

The Dispenser (Pharmacist):

Your pharmacist performs a final, independent safety check. They verify the dosage, screen for dangerous interactions with other drugs you take, and ensure the prescription is appropriate before dispensing it.

The Problem:

When one person does both, the independent second check is lost,
and a commercial interest enters a clinical decision.
That is not a criticism of any individual pharmacist.
It is a problem with the structure.

Why Do We Need Safer Prescribing?

The Training Difference

Doctors spend nearly a decade in training before they're allowed to independently diagnose a patient and prescribe medicines — including upwards of 5,000 hours of supervised, real-world clinical experience treating real patients with real complications [1] [2].

The main national pharmacist prescribing qualification runs part-time over one year at a minimum of 14.5 hours a week, roughly 750 hours in total [3] on top of their pharmacy degree. The Queensland pilot's safe prescribing component includes 120 hours of experiential learning [4]. That is not a small gap.

Diagnosis is not just "knowing what a drug does". It is ruling out the other things a symptom could mean, and recognising when something does not add up. That is what supervised clinical training is for.

The Pharmacy Board's proposed national prescribing endorsement would go further. Its preferred option would qualify endorsed pharmacists to prescribe Schedule 8 controlled drugs, like oxycodone and tapentadol [5], wherever a state or territory chooses to allow it. No state currently does. These medications have serious potential for misuse, dependency and harm.

That's what years & years of clinical training are for.

A Conflict of Interest that

needs to be carefully managed!

Imagine if a car salesman was also the mechanic who certified that the car was roadworthy.

Or imagine if a real estate agent was able to sign off on a building inspection report.

Now picture a pharmacy where the same person diagnoses your condition, decides you need a medicine, writes the prescription, and then sells it to you.

No independent checks and balances needed.

This model is already operating in parts of Australia, and wider expansion is being proposed.

At present, there is no dedicated system to detect when it goes wrong.

"Better than nothing" isn't the same as "safe"

The usual argument for pharmacist prescribing is access — that in areas with long GP wait times, a pharmacist is better than no care at all.

But that framing hides the real choice being made. The alternative to a pharmacy prescribing consult is not "no healthcare forever". It is fixing GP access, funding telehealth, and investing in the workforce already trained to do this safely. Addressing a shortage by removing a safeguard is a trade-off patients have not been asked about.

The evidence on pharmacist prescribing is still thin. The most comprehensive international review to date rated the certainty of evidence as low or very low for every outcome it examined [6]. An independent review of community pharmacist prescribing found safety outcomes had been reported for only 2 of the 29 conditions it examined [7].

Australia should build that evidence before expanding further, not after.

These harms often go unreported

When something goes wrong in a hospital, there are mandatory adverse event reporting systems. When something goes wrong after a prescribing consult in the community, there is often no equivalent, and patients frequently do not know who to tell.

We built this site to help fill that gap. If you, a patient or a family member has experienced a missed diagnosis, an inappropriate prescription, a dangerous interaction, or any other medicine-related harm in the community, we want to hear about it. Reports can be made anonymously.

We will publish periodic, de-identified summaries of what is reported. Individual pharmacies, practices and practitioners will never be named.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main goal of SaferPrescribing.com?

SaferPrescribing.com is a doctor-led advocacy initiative dedicated to preserving the crucial separation between the person who prescribes your medication (your doctor) and the person who sells it to you (your pharmacist). We believe that maintaining this strict division—which has long been the bedrock of patient safety in Australia—is essential to ensuring independent medical decisions free from financial conflicts of interest.

Why is combining prescribing and dispensing concerning?

When a single entity is allowed to diagnose a condition, prescribe a drug, and financially benefit from the retail sale of that exact medication, it removes a vital "second check." Currently, pharmacists act as an independent safety barrier to catch potential errors in dosage or dangerous drug interactions made by a prescriber. Eliminating this division removes that critical safety net and introduces a commercial conflict of interest into clinical decision-making.

Who can report?

Patients, family members, carers and health professionals can submit reports about any medicine-related safety incident in the community, whoever prescribed. Recording who prescribed lets us compare like with like. Reports are confidential and used only in de-identified form.

Is this campaign anti-pharmacist?

No. Pharmacists are medication experts and an essential safety check in the system. Their knowledge of drug interactions, dosing and medication management is exactly why the independent dispensing check matters. Our concern is with a structure that asks one person to diagnose, prescribe and sell, and puts community pharmacists in a position where retail pressures and clinical judgement can collide.

How will my signature on the petition make a difference?

Your signature provides the collective leverage needed to influence state and federal health ministers, regulators, and lawmakers. Independent medical care is a bipartisan public health issue. By adding your voice, you help us demonstrate that the Australian public prioritizes robust patient safety and unbiased medical advice over commercial convenience.

Who runs this site, and why don't you use your names?

Safer Prescribing is run by a group of practising Australian doctors. We publish without names so the discussion stays on the policy and the evidence, not on individuals. Every claim on this site is referenced so it can be checked.

Isn't this just doctors protecting their turf?

We understand why it can look that way. Our position is not "only doctors can prescribe", nurse practitioners can already do so, furthermore pharmacists can already recommend S2 and S3 over the counter medications. We support pharmacists prescribing within collaborative care arrangements with a patient's GP. What we oppose is removing the independent check between the decision to prescribe and the sale.

Safer Prescribing is an independent, clinician-led initiative. We are not opposed to pharmacists — they are highly trained medication experts and valued members of the healthcare team. We are opposed to a model that asks them to diagnose, prescribe, and sell in the same breath, with no independent safeguard in between.