Who do you think should be able to prescribe medication and treatment?

Follow-up question; what is your opinion of professionals who are not physicians (e.g. social workers, acupuncturists, naturopaths and others) using and prescribing medication and medical remedies?

in my opinion, anyone who diagnoses illness whether it be mental or physical, should be considered a physician, and able to prescribe treatment.

That's a fascinating view, and I completely agree with you. If medicines and medical treatments can be proven safe through experience and research, they should be made available to as many people as possible (free of charge, in my opinion)

Alternative medicine and healing has been proven effective, in the physical, mental, and in some cases, spiritual sense. Many "alternative" remedies have been passed down for generations by families and religious peoples. We should take into consideration always that everyone has differing opinions on this subject, but that it IS also a freedom of choice, which some have lost here due to religious intolerance or very strict regulations. In my opinion any non-invasive medical treatment should be allowed, barring it causes no sort(s) of physical harm to anyone, or any direct negative long-term side effects. We could have various methods studied further (panel vote?), to determine if they would be detrimental to the well-being of the patient(s), before that treatment is an acceptable method. Ultimately though, the choice should be up to the patient what they want done to their body, as it is their prerogative to choose, and only theirs. For medicines and those who may give a prescription, I agree that any who can practice medicine should be able to give the medicine of their own line of work (ex: A Reiki healer could not prescribe pain medications). Free of charge, with the benefit of peace of mind since you get what you want instead of what they say you want.

deleted

I'm hardly qualified to judge on prescription practice but I'd like to agree with some of the previous poster's comment that Asgardia should have no policy of drug control unless part of a working environment. 

Comment deleted

@ Richard Howl 

Really  do you want to be in a locked metal room with someone blitzed on PCP? I shure don't. 

I can get myself lost in the overall picture of medicines and treatments but I need to narrow my view back to purely psychological medications & treatments. There are some concerns I would have as to where the discussion and constitution are directed when directed towards mental health, psychological care and especially about medications and treatments. There will without a doubt be a need for mental health guidelines. Stress and illness are realities that will have to be dealt with. Here are some consideration to adding to the brainstorm:

1. What is the definition of mental health, who gets to define this?
   1. How often should this be reviewed so that new discoveries can be adopted into the defining criteria?
2. What is the definition and scope of practice of mental health workers?
   1. Will we have different classifications like therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist, mental health aid, crisis intervention worker, social worker, occupational therapists, etc, etc? 
   2. At what point do we want an exhaustive list of all the possible mental health occupations and the standards of the scope of practice? 
3. Who holds our mental health workers accountable for administering treatment?
   1. Experience tells me that what one person will chart for opinions about another person can be seriously biased and inaccurate even at the level of a doctorate.
   2. To what degree of education do we hold each position to?
4. To what standard of testing should we uphold? 
   1. Do we create our own variation of the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Health Disorders?
   2. Who has the authority to administer diagnosis and who holds them accountable for their diagnosis?
   3. Do we put more merit in science or in the art of mental medicine? There is a lot of disagreement as to the efficacy of different treatments and medicines, some want verifiable evidence and some just need statistics to warrant a diagnosis.
   4. Genetic testing is shining a light on many mental health issues, it's very much in its infancy in being part of the diagnostic evaluation but is very promising at uncovering issues that we may want dealt with.
   5. Nuclear medicine technologies are also increasing in the amount of utilization in making a more accurate diagnosis of actual mental health issues versus just different ideologies (often in my experience people can look at other groups as mentally ill when in fact they are not and it just boils down to ideologies and difference of opinions)
   6. Other testing methods, and research. How do we upgrade our systems without angering those who come before? That is change always seems to have resistance, skeptics are good but can be overtly skeptical especially when their ideas are challenged.
5. Will we have use of nuclear medicine technologies or other diagnostic capacities to narrow down mental health issues that are central nervous system bioelectrochemical related?
   1. Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT), positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI), and other radio imaging technologies. 
   2. Who should be in charge of these technologies and administering them if deemed valuable and capable of achieving the end results we want (proper diagnostics beyond a reasonable doubt)?
   3. If someone is going to be treatment resistant in our current system of mental health there is a possibility that either a gene test or radio imaging scan could uncover the root of the issue and provide a method to reduce treatment resistance ( no sense in having cognitive behaviour therapy if the likelihood of the person genetically will not benefit from it unless that gene mutation is corrected or balanced with an external thing)
6. As for gene testing, will this be mandatory so that known problem genes can be remedied?
   1. At what point do we consider a particular gene a problem gene and requiring remedy?
   2. if there is no known way to remedy a problem gene will this exclude that person from expeditions of particular types or overall?
   3. There is a vastly growing body of evidence that links serious mental illness to mutations or variations in very specific genes. 
   4. Optogenetic gene therapy is gaining traction and if we can be certain that the problem areas of disorders can be rectified do we do this?
7. Ethics of the mental health system
   1. How do we define our ethics within the system, especially with such a diverse background of people?
   2. Who's practices do we adopt and why? Should we define our own?

I will keep my additions to the discussion at this for the time being so as to not be too overwhelming. Maybe this stuff has already discussed elsewhere, if so please link me there so I can review and add my own perspective.

Dears Asgardians,

It's a question of professional responsibility. Only a qualified health professional can prescribe in medications. Because he knows the human physiology and the chemistry of the drugs he prescribes.

Unfortunately, training, diplomas, skills and permissions are very different in eatch countries of the world.

I think our Asgardian health ministry needs to think about this.

As a psychologist graduated in France I can offer psychotherapy but I can not prescribe drugs because I do not have the necessary training in physiology and chemistry. Being citizens of Asgardia don't give me these necessary knowledge anymore. So I will not prescribe drugs and let the physician doctor do.

We need to bring together all Asgardian's graduated health professionals. Then we can think together about our own health system: powerfull, fair and for all.