<p>Should we pull it from the market, considering the dangers?</p>
<p>Sorry to be so crass, but all drugs have possible side-effects. I mean, every time I take a new antibiotic, something in the back of my head says to me, “This might hurt you.” But then I take it anyway. Why? 'Cause it’s more likely to benefit me than hurt me.</p>
<p>Same with driving.</p>
<p>You bring up a good point UCLA, overuse of antibiotics has caused a worldwide health crisis- certainly something affecting a larger number of people than the “morning after pill”</p>
<p><a href=“EU plan to end overprescribing antibiotics - UPI.com”>EU plan to end overprescribing antibiotics - UPI.com;
<p>*MRSA or methicillin-resistant staph aureus - once exclusively found in hospitals - is now increasingly common in community settings. A recent study says children under two years of age, like Bryce, are at greatest risk.</p>
<p>But they are not alone. Two million hospital patients a year get bacterial infections. 90,000 of them die. More than 70 percent of the bacteria that cause these infections are resistant to one or more antibiotics.*</p>
<p><a href=“http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002561.html[/url]”>http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002561.html</a></p>
<p>*University of Buffalo chemists say they’ve identified metabolites of two antibiotics and a medial imaging agent at wastewater treatment plants.</p>
<p>The chemists said data from their landmark discovery will allow wastewater treatment plants to begin monitoring for those byproducts.</p>
<p>The researchers said their discovery also reinforces concerns about excreted pharmaceutical compounds from wastewater systems that might end up in water supplies, potentially resulting in adverse effects for humans and the environment.</p>
<p>The UB scientists identified the metabolites for sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim, commonly prescribed antibiotics, and for a synthetic estrogen, a common ingredient in birth control pills and in hormone replacement therapy.*</p>
<p>and more </p>
<p>*Babies who took even just one course of antibiotics during the first year of life may face an elevated risk of developing childhood asthma, according to a new Canadian study published in the March issue of CHEST, the peer-reviewed journal of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP).</p>
<p>Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by episodes or attacks of I nflammation and narrowing of small airways in response to asthma “triggers.” Asthma attacks can vary from mild to life-threatening and involve shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, chest pain or tightness, or a combination of these symptoms. </p>
<p>The study found those who were exposed to antibiotics in the first year of life were twice as likely as those who were untreated to develop asthma in childhood. In addition, there was a dose-response relationship between the risk and the number of courses of antibiotics.*</p>
<p>
there have been 6 deaths out of 500,000+ women who have had medical abortions using Mifeprex (RU-486) and Misoporostal. If those 500,000+ women had all continued their pregancies, there would have been at least 60 deaths. The same clostridial ibfection that is known to have caused the first 4 US deaths after medical abortion has also occurred after childbirth, surgical abortion, natural miscarriage, and procedures unrelated to childbirth, including orthopedic surgery and wound infections.</p>
<p>Actually, UCLAra, Ritalin is far riskier than Vioxx, which was pulled by the FDA. Similarly, high power anti-psychotics are being used routinely on children, (use expanded exponentially in the past ten or so years), and these drugs have never been tested for safety and efficacy in children. </p>
<p>Here’s a NYTimes article on Ritalin safety. Sorry to be off topic for the thread.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/health/policy/10drug.html?ex=1297227600&en=88c174fed7f7f6ff&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/health/policy/10drug.html?ex=1297227600&en=88c174fed7f7f6ff&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss</a></p>
<p>Personally, I would be interested in advancing the discussion of medical ethics.</p>
<p>
I’m still convinced that the relevant (ignored) distinction is between group determinations and individual determinations. If a woman comes into a pharmacy and is on anti-depressants and birth control, the pharmacist might want to let her know that depression is a side effect of birth control. That individual should know that. Likewise, a pharmacist should, ethically, discuss concerns with a woman who comes in with medication for high blood pressure from a GP and the Pill from an GYN - “Hey, does your GYN know that you have blood pressure issues?” is a relevant question. Likewise, it is the duty of a pharmacist to ensure that a patient is not taking medications that conflict with each other. In all cases, it is an individualized determination: the relevant question is, “Does this specific person need more information? Does this person take medications that interact with each other? Is this particular patient aware of the side effects of this medication or does it look like the physician didn’t explain everything?” </p>
<p>Said it before, will say it again: pharmacists who refuse to dispense the Pill on “moral” grounds don’t even know if the woman in question is having sex. It’s an age/gender issue, not a specific determination. A pharmacist should not be an automaton; however, when he automatically refuses to dispense certain medications, without even inquiring for the reasons for taking them, he is acting as an automaton - programmed by someone not the state, but an automaton nonetheless.</p>
<p>The pharmacist is also acting as a final authority on the matter; a teacher who reports illegal aliens is not making the decision to deport them, only passing this along to the relevant agency.</p>
<p>Your teacher/pharmacist analogy is not apples to oranges; it’s apples to apple seeds. Imagine if a teacher had the preliminary power (subject to overrule on appeal) to deport illegal aliens. Imagine if she exercised that power over anyone with a heavy accent who does not have a US birth certificate. That is exactly what pharmacists are doing - and it’s morally repugnant. </p>
<p>Patients deserve at least a thorough discussion and explanation before refusal to fill a prescription. The refusal should also have some medical rationale - conflicting with other meds, person has been addicted to such narcotics before but prescribing MD is unaware, side effects can be particularly harmful to this individual, medication does not correspond to complaints (appears as if wrong medicine or dosage prescribed) - but the pharmacist is not a physician and does not have unilateral, final veto power over what medications a patient takes, without even having spoken to her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just have one question… why do people have such a hard time with my name? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I’ve read this article. And in it, they stated that the FDA voted in favor of a black box. The FDA seems well-aware of the drug’s dangers. </p>
<p>The article seems clear in stating that while the deaths have raised concerns, they continue to be in the less than one in a million range. Furthermore, the effects on the heart seem to be more pronounced in adults.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that Ritalin should stay on the market (or that it shouldn’t), but other than maybe being overprescribed, it seems to more than meet safety requirements.</p>