Dr. Ruffalo, You stated that “as long as the patient consents to them (drugs), and is informed that they are not treating any known diseases, I am okay with them.” I am of the understanding that the purpose for prescribing a drug to a patient is indeed to treat an illness or disease … for example, antibiotics are prescribed to a patient who suffers from a bacterial infection … the right antibiotic that will kill that bacteria is prescribed to the patient to do just that. What is the purpose for prescribing a drug that doesn’t treat anything? As well, patients typically have faith in their doctor’s inclination to do the right thing – they trust that the doctor will give them what is needed to make them well. Why would you give them a drug that won’t cure anything? Informing the patient is your disclaimer to avoid accountability – and just because you inform them, that doesn’t make it okay to give them a drug that is useless. The only thing that comes out of that, is the money that is made selling the drug, because you have already stated it won’t do anything to make the patient better. I’m conjecturing that even if a patient is told that the drug you are prescribing them won’t cure anything, the patient likely figures there must be some reason for you prescribing it – or it wouldn’t be prescribed! I don’t comprehend how you can possibly be “okay” with giving a patient a prescription drug that you know won’t do anything, simply because you told that patient that it wouldn’t.