Hi,
I had the first part of my english SAC today and I am kind of confused with the article I got. The article is about codeine, I found a version online on: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/codeine-change-a-hard-but-necessary-pill-to-swallow-20180131-h0rf6l.html
I can't identify the point of view or contention of the editor. What are your opinion ?
Edward
Hello!
Here is what I think. This is obviously not in the best English, but just my thoughts and they've come on paper:
Contention: The editorial team derives its own stance from expert opinions, and contends that the banning even low dose over the counter drugs may not be the most revolutionist approach to stop people being exposed to codeine's harmful effects.
Argument 1: THe editorial presents a regrettable situation when people who are against the ban are failing to realise the national benefits that could be cherished by Australia when competing with international health policies and general health trends
Argument 2: Having prescription only codeine drugs is not going to relieve the pressure of GPs or specialists; it will only increase their medical responsibility to resolve patients' potential side effects of consuming these medicines. Afterall, hospitals, etc are accountable for their patients when they give consent for codeine consumption
Argument 3: Banning over the counter drugs is not going to stop addicts; there are various other ways through which they access codeine, such as from neighbourhood pharmacies. Only a negligible amount of the addicted population is going to be catered for with the ban.
Hope this helps