Pharmacists in small towns are often first in line for people to seek medical advice from, often for small things: chit chat about their cough, show a nasty bruise or ugly cut, a weird rash, etc... They&#x27;re like doctors-lite, a listening ear, but with some authority, and some agency to suggest minor treatment. Not unlike nurses. And usually a pharmacist could recognize when something is more serious and refer somebody to a doctor.<p>I grew up in such a town, and as a kid, I knew the pharmacist a lot better than the family doctor: &quot;my ma told me to ask you about this wart on my hand&quot;, that kind of thing. Heck, our pharmacists even did home deliveries to old people (on her bike, no joke). I&#x27;m in a my mid-thirties, so this is not entirely ancient history.<p>So I can see why that social aspect of the work - which is incredible valuable - cannot be automated.<p>Now, there&#x27;s WebMD, pharmacists are doing a shift in CVS, &quot;small town life&quot; is pretty much dead, these soft relationships between shopkeepers and customers no longer exist, people no longer defer to authority as easily as they used to, ...<p>Also, pharmacists have the law on their side. Drugs are a political issue, so they nurture their role as gate-keeper. For that reason alone, the credentialing will persist. The only difference is that perhaps a pharmacist will just be the lady pushing the on&#x2F;off button on the vending machine, but still, somebody will need to push that button. The jobs that will be automated won&#x27;t be the pharmacist&#x27;s job, it will be the assistant&#x27;s jobs.