In the largest part jurisdictions pharmacists are keeping up discretely from physicians.In particular, the legislation stipulates that the practice of prescribing must be separate from the practice of dispensing.These jurisdictions too usually denote that only pharmacists may bring scheduled pharmaceuticals to the public, and that pharmacists cannot form business partnerships with physicians or give them "kickback" payments.Though, the American Medical Association (AMA) Code of principles provides that physicians may dispense drugs within their office practices as long as there is no patient utilization and patients have the right to a written prescription that can be filled elsewhere.In other jurisdictions doctors are permitted to dispense drugs themselves and the practice of pharmacy is now and then incorporated with that of the physician, principally in traditional Chinese medicine.In Canada it is common for a medical clinic and a pharmacy to be placed together and for the ownership in both enterprises to be common, but certified separately.

The reason for the popular rule is the high risk of a variance of interest.If not, the physician has a financial self-interest in "diagnosing" as many conditions as possible, and in exaggerating their importance, because he or she can then sell more medications to the patient.Such self-centeredness directly conflicts with the patient's interest in obtaining cost-effective medication and avoiding the unnecessary use of medication that may have side-effects.This system reflects much resemblance to the checks and balances system of the U.S. and many other governments.A movement for partition has begun in many countries and has already been successful. As many of the outstanding nations move towards partition, confrontation and lobbying from dispensing doctors who have pecuniary interests may prove a major faltering block.