The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 272 No 7297 p541
1 May 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

· Indemnity insurance
· CPD
· Drug nomenclature
· NHS pension scheme
· Ampoule labelling
· The profession
· Electronic prescribing
· Canvassing
· The Society

Letters to the Editor

Drug nomenclature

Something worth doing is worth doing properly

From Mr D. J. S. Robb, MRPharmS

I fully accept the need for a revision of the names for our medicines so travellers are not given incorrect medicines and to promote consistency in international publications. Are the changes from British Approved Names to International Non-proprietary Names the first steps toward achieving these goals, or is there a degree of “fuzzy logic” running through our renaming process (PJ, 17 April, p472)?

For example, flupenthixol has become flupentixol. However, zuclopenthixol has remained the same. Guaiphenesin has become guaifenesin. Chlormethiazole has become clomethiazole, but chlorpheniramine has become chlorphenamine; using the above logic, it should have become clofenamine. But then again, why has chlormethiazole not become clometiazole?

I cannot understand the failure to apply common rules to the renaming process. Are we simply renaming our drugs to conform to the world hegemony, or are we trying to achieve a logical and unified system? As I have always been taught, if something is worth doing then it is worth doing properly.

David Robb
Critical Care Pharmacist
Addenbrooke’s Hospital,
Cambridge

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (CPD)
Next Topic (NHS pension scheme)