>>812103for many, perhaps even
most medicines there shouldn't be gatekeeping even under capitalism. deregulating this is one of many areas where neoliberal thinking would be entirely correct but reform simply never happened because actually-existing neoliberalism barely came close to the implications of the theories that supposedly underpinned it, even though its greatest successes came when it did just that.
a doctor should retain their role to advise and to monitor, but not act as a gatekeeper. a public health system could operate on a dual track basis: buy whatever you want, or get prescribed what the doctor suggests for free. in a handful of cases, some control will be necessary for the public good (antibiotics etc), and some control may be required elsewhere to e.g. ensure people don't start a tiktok trend of abusing clozapine, but that control doesn't really need to be rigid. (merely enforcing a delay between purchase and obtaining the thing, for example, would create enough of an "ugh" factor to mitigate such a trend.) medication already comes with reasonably clear instruction leaflets informing you of side effects and effects, and a huge chunk of the time people go to the doctor already knowing roughly what they're seeking to have diagnosed and prescribed. there is no evil in regularising de-jure what already exists de-facto so that its operations can be understood openly.