Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not exactly. As his wife, it is not my responsibility to know what medications he takes. This is his and his doctors responsibility.
After his first heart attack, I just brought his entire box of pills into the hospital. They could see what he took and the dosages. I suppose as you say, an automated system would have been a lot easier.
So you did provide the information they needed about your husband's prescription drugs. You're not obligated, as I see it, to commit to memory his list of prescription drugs or other medication-if it's a long list I couldn't do it either. But you gave the hospital the list of his meds in the form of the actual prescription bottles, might be a bit more cumbersome than a nicely written list, but as I see it is a perfectly valid way to give them the information.
So you did provide the information they needed about your husband's prescription drugs. You're not obligated, as I see it, to commit to memory his list of prescription drugs or other medication-if it's a long list I couldn't do it either. But you gave the hospital the list of his meds in the form of the actual prescription bottles, might be a bit more cumbersome than a nicely written list, but as I see it is a perfectly valid way to give them the information.
DH's internist actually asks for the meds to be brought in the original prescription bottles. That way he can get an idea of whether the patient is actually taking everything as prescribed. If a bottle should be near empty and it is near full, doses are being missed. That could be why the condition is no better, and the doc needs to know why the med is not being taken. Forgetfulness? Side effects? Do not think it is needed?
I'm so sorry, I didn't realize your RA was that bad.
I don't think I could personally make that decision for myself or a loved one.
It's aggressive. When it first started I could hardly walk, it was very frightening.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I take Enbrel. One of Enbrel's side effects is the possibility of increase in cancer potential.
That's pretty darn bad.
But without it? I would be crippled by now, I would have had severe RA in my feet, hands and back. I would be like an 80 year old at 50.
It is a choice. If I get cancer? That will suck, but I know the risks, and determined I will take quality of life and not length of life. If I get cancer is that the fault of the pharmaceutical company? Nope. Should I be able to sue? Nope.
I'm thankful they came up with something that allows me to remain active and relatively pain free.
I am grateful.
Great attitude. Great post.
Drugs are tested extensively to gain enough experience to calculate the statistics on how well they work and the rate of & severity of side effects. We know that drug A will have a risk of 1 in, say, 1000 pts developing some particular side effect. We just don't know which pt that will be. It's a constant concern in treatment determining risk vs benefit.
As Yogi Berra told us, " It's tough to make predictions....especially about the future."
Honestly, discussions with you are tendentious (look it up) and damn near impossible because instead of listening to explanations you go off on rants against the medical profession and pharmaceutical industry that don't bear any relationship to reality. You believe those rants take the place of arguments carefully constructed out of logic and evidence. They don't.
Time and time again its been explained to you that there is no way to take all the possible risks out of medication. The very qualities that make medications effective make them dangerous to some people when too much is taken or a person is that 1 out of a 1,000,000 with slightly different biochemistry than the rest of us. You can't accept it though. A sugar pill or placebo probably has some slight risk for some small percentage of people. A small number of people are allergic to one food or another. If we start banning all these I doubt there will be anything left for the general population to eat.
These discussions are eyeopening for me as a plaintiff's personal injury attorney. In tort law, we talk about a concept known as a "reasonable man" or "reasonable person". Its taken these forums for me to learn just how many truly unreasonable people there are.
No. It's what she has said. Over and over again.
She has said that the patient should know the risks of taking any medication and is therefore responsible for themselves if they come to harm, not the drug manufacturer (or the doctor or the pharmacist).
In the next breath she then says any AEs are exceedingly rare, never happen, or are caused by something that is not related to the drug. So, again, not the drug manufacturer's fault (or the doctor or the pharmacist).
And then she'll add on:
Any effect or personal experience a poster claims is from a drug ... with no further information about said poster's health or medical history ... well, here's 14 articles that say the drug wasn't the cause. Because drugs never cause harm. So the poster is wrong, the poster's personal experience is irrelevant, and she knows MORE than the poster about the poster's own health experiences.
What I've written is true. There is no falsehood or misinterpretation. That's her MO. And she sticks to it like a broken record. Drugs always good.
DH's internist actually asks for the meds to be brought in the original prescription bottles. That way he can get an idea of whether the patient is actually taking everything as prescribed. If a bottle should be near empty and it is near full, doses are being missed. That could be why the condition is no better, and the doc needs to know why the med is not being taken. Forgetfulness? Side effects? Do not think it is needed?
The nurse was thrilled that I brought in all the bottles. I did see her pouring one out and counting the number of pills left in the bottle.
DH's internist actually asks for the meds to be brought in the original prescription bottles. That way he can get an idea of whether the patient is actually taking everything as prescribed. If a bottle should be near empty and it is near full, doses are being missed. That could be why the condition is no better, and the doc needs to know why the med is not being taken. Forgetfulness? Side effects? Do not think it is needed?
Wow, good reason for looking at the original prescription bottles, ie, to check for compliance. Hadn't thought of that.
She has said that the patient should know the risks of taking any medication and is therefore responsible for themselves if they come to harm, not the drug manufacturer (or the doctor or the pharmacist).
In the next breath she then says any AEs are exceedingly rare, never happen, or are caused by something that is not related to the drug. So, again, not the drug manufacturer's fault (or the doctor or the pharmacist).
And then she'll add on:
Any effect or personal experience a poster claims is from a drug ... with no further information about said poster's health or medical history ... well, here's 14 articles that say the drug wasn't the cause. Because drugs never cause harm. So the poster is wrong, the poster's personal experience is irrelevant, and she knows MORE than the poster about the poster's own health experiences.
What I've written is true. There is no falsehood or misinterpretation. That's her MO. And she sticks to it like a broken record. Drugs always good.
Yes, anyone who takes any drug should be willing to accept any risks that are disclosed. We all make decisions concerning risk every day. We ride in motor vehicles knowing there is a risk of a crash - and those crashes happen way more often than serious adverse effects from drugs. We eat in restaurants knowing there is a risk of food borne illness - and that happens way more often than serious adverse reactions to drugs. We engage in all sorts of recreational activities that carry a risk of serious injury or death: rock climbing, riding horses, gymnastics, football. People do it every day. A parent who will not vaccinate her child against measles will let her get on a horse and jump fences. .
Adverse events are exceedingly rare for most drugs, more common for some other others. We tend to accept more risk when the consequences of not using them are dire - such as treating a child with chemo for leukemia. I have never claimed adverse effects never happen. If there is evidence that the drug was not the cause, you bet I will provide it.
No one knows more about a person's health experiences than the person having the experience. However the person having the experience may ascribe the wrong cause to it. For example, it is common for people here on CD to say they got flu from flu vaccine. That does not happen because the virus in a flu shot is dead. It cannot replicate and cause flu. The vaccine may cause muscle aches and some fever for a day or two but that is not due to an influenza infection; it is due to the immune system doing its job and reacting to the vaccine.
Drugs that do more harm than good do not get used. Patients do not take them and doctors stop prescribing them.
Yes, anyone who takes any drug should be willing to accept any risks that are disclosed. We all make decisions concerning risk every day. We ride in motor vehicles knowing there is a risk of a crash - and those crashes happen way more often than serious adverse effects from drugs. We eat in restaurants knowing there is a risk of food borne illness - and that happens way more often than serious adverse reactions to drugs. We engage in all sorts of recreational activities that carry a risk of serious injury or death: rock climbing, riding horses, gymnastics, football. People do it every day. A parent who will not vaccinate her child against measles will let her get on a horse and jump fences. .
Adverse events are exceedingly rare for most drugs, more common for some other others. We tend to accept more risk when the consequences of not using them are dire - such as treating a child with chemo for leukemia. I have never claimed adverse effects never happen. If there is evidence that the drug was not the cause, you bet I will provide it.
No one knows more about a person's health experiences than the person having the experience. However the person having the experience may ascribe the wrong cause to it. For example, it is common for people here on CD to say they got flu from flu vaccine. That does not happen because the virus in a flu shot is dead. It cannot replicate and cause flu. The vaccine may cause muscle aches and some fever for a day or two but that is not due to an influenza infection; it is due to the immune system doing its job and reacting to the vaccine.
Drugs that do more harm than good do not get used. Patients do not take them and doctors stop prescribing them.
Yes we all takes risks that are a direct result of our OWN actions.
We don't make products that we know and have been PROVED to harm people when used as directed and under supervision, then shrug and say, not my responsibility when somebody gets hurt. Not my bad.
And no one knows better about their health than that person. If you pretend you know more about a poster's health -- which you do all the time -- you are beyond egotistical and condescending. And that happens all the time. We've all seen it, over and over and over, dismissing individual experiences because article XYZ says it can't happen. Ridiculous.
People know what your posts say. You post a bazillion times a day. Pretending you haven't said any of this is pretty stupid. Like a kid with cookie crumbs on his face. Cookie jar? I didn't break it. Wipes crumbs. Moving on ...
Last edited by newtovenice; 08-09-2018 at 05:54 AM..
Yes we all takes risks that are a direct result of our OWN actions.
We don't make products that we know and have been PROVED to harm people when used as directed and under supervision, then shrug and say, not my responsibility when somebody gets hurt. Not my bad.
And no one knows better about their health than that person. If you pretend you know more about a poster's health -- which you do all the time -- you are beyond egotistical and condescending. And that happens all the time. We've all seen it, over and over and over, dismissing individual experiences because article XYZ says it can't happen. Ridiculous.
People know what your posts say. You post a bazillion times a day. Pretending you haven't said any of this is pretty stupid. Like a kid with cookie crumbs on his face. Cookie jar? I didn't break it. Wipes crumbs. Moving on ...
I disagree that no one knows more about their health than that person.
If that were true there would be no need for doctors, nurses, dentists, physical therapists, pharmacists, etc.
I don't pretend I know more about an antibiotic like avelox than my family doctor knows. I certainly do not know more about its side effects and the way it may interact with other medicines.
Even if it were true that we know more about our health than anyone else we do not know about our children's health than others do.
Its a common thing not only in medicine, but elsewhere in life to confuse cause and effect. One of my favorite stories involves the parent of a friend who was in the Army. He began to associate rain storms with artillery practice and concluded that the artillery must be causing the storms. Than he learned that they deliberately picked days with low barometric pressure for artillery practice.
What is your point here exactly? Are you saying that we ought to ban all medications with any side effect? Are you saying we shouldn't have to get a prescription from a doctor to take a medicine since we know more about our own health than anyone else?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
