Gaviscon

[ewx]

Why was Reckitt's opinion sought on the generic name? Surely giving former holders of legalized monopolies a lock on the introduction of generics is just asking for them to delay the process? Which are the regulatory bodies involved anyway (the article fails to name them)?

edit: The Times clarifies matters. Firstly it took the BNF three years to decide that they had the right to issue a name at all. Then the BPC were persuaded that a “detailed quality specification” was required.

Why these two things could not be done in parallel, and why an extra specification wasn't required for Reckitt's own manufacturing in the first place, isn't stated.

Comments

[new-brunette.livejournal.com]

It's quite outrageous, I agree (and your link doesn't work - there's a superfluous " at the end of it...)

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Link fixed, thanks.

[emperor]

Your URL has a spurious " on the end of it.

[stephdairy.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why they need to settle on a name for the generic anyway. Why can't they just call it sodium alginate?

(S)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

WTF? How hard can it be? I come up with lots of names, and I'm fairly sure none of them endanger patients (patience, perhaps...).

I always assumed generic names could be taken from real or code names used for the thing before anyone branded it at all.

[armb.livejournal.com]

There's probably a case for "the generic name should not be so similar to the specific name that consumers are confused about the difference while we continue to advertise the specific".
But, since there's no real difference, not a very strong case.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

Ouch. Also, I want to slap all the current commentators on that times article (variants on "it's their drug = right to monopoly profits" and also "the NHS shouldn't pay for heartburn medication")

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I essentially never read the comments on news stories.