 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / January 2004Doctor's refusal to prescribe antibiotics cause three year old to lose her legs
It is criminal to label bacterial illnesses as viral without proof . Of course there is no proof as early on the symptoms of both are the same and even viral illnesses can cause high temparatures. In the days before antibiotics were discovered most people even with bacterial illnesses got better anyway , so the fact they still do so does not mean that they didnt have a bacterial illness and that the refusal to give them antibiotics was justified . It is better to err on the side of caution and give antibiotics early . Animals have them daily and the only side effect is they grow faster and there are children with cystic fibrosis who have been on daily antibiotics for 20 years and done very well. excerpt DEVASTATED AT DOCTORS' FAILURE Dec 22 2003 By Richard Smith A GIRL of two has had both legs amputated after doctors twice failed to spot a dangerous infection. Last night Lydia Cross's parents said they were utterly devastated and felt badly let down by the medical profession. Their daughter was showing astonishing courage, telling nurses: "They took my poorly legs away and I'm getting new ones for Christmas." She fell ill just six hours after her nine-month-old sister Millie had returned home from nine days on life support with bacterial meningitis. Lydia's temperature was 40.5C, three and a half degrees above normal, and she was vomiting and suffering hallucinations. Dad Tony, an army sergeant, and mum Jodie were especially alarmed in view of Millie's fight for life at Cardiff University Hospital. She had complete organ failure. They took Lydia to their local A&E unit at Chippenham hospital, Wilts. A doctor said the child had a virus and advised her parents to give her Calpol. Thirty-six hours later Lydia's temperature rose to 41.5C - and again a doctor at the hospital said there was no reason to worry. Next morning hairdresser Jodie rang her GP and asked him to visit, but he was too busy. That evening she got an appointment to see the GP and when a nurse saw Lydia, she immediately called an ambulance. Doctors at Bristol Children's Hospital diagnosed Haemophilus Influenza Type B - known as HIB - and septicaemia. Hib is a major cause of bacterial meningitis. Lydia was given antibiotics, which stopped the infection spreading. But the damage to her legs had already been done. She spent 12 days on a life- support machine after suffering multi-organ failure. Doctors at Frenchay hospital, also in Bristol, decided two weeks ago that nothing could be done to save her legs and carried out a double amputation below the knee google news What are you trying to say???? > It is criminal to label bacterial illnesses as viral without > proof . Of course there is no proof as early on the symptoms of both [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > google news The govt is starting to panic . Antibiotic use has fallen by a third and death rates due to chest infections gone up by 50% !! The peanuts it saved is going to be outcost by the amount it will have to pay in negligence claims. Is there a test to determine whether something is viral or bacterial? Or do doctors just say it is viral without really knowing or being able to find out? Ora > It is criminal to label bacterial illnesses as viral without >proof . Of course there is no proof as early on the symptoms of both [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > >google news jesus has the answers. > Is there a test to determine whether something is viral or bacterial? Or do > doctors just say it is viral without really knowing or being able to find out? > > Ora Its from the diagnosis - they have to memorize a list of symptoms that indicate if its viral or bacterial. > jesus has the answers. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >>Ora In soc.culture.british harmony <aka@hotmail.com> wrote: > jesus has the answers. Yes. I believe he says you are going to hell. Who says there is no justice in this world. > <taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message >> Is there a test to determine whether something is viral or bacterial? You can't culture a virus, I think, because it needs a cell to reproduce. >> Or >> do >> doctors just say it is viral without really knowing or being able to find >> out? >> >> Ora  SignatureFrom: "harmony" <aka@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Indian woman dies on husband's pyre Message-ID: <ulrbpeobg9po91@corp.supernews.com> >I am proud to be a member of mommedan parliament. >Is there a test to determine whether something is viral or bacterial? Or do >doctors just say it is viral without really knowing or being able to find out? The "test" is a thorough history and physical examination by a knowledgeable and experienced physician. The original poster who thinks that this unusual case of gross misdiagnosis of H. influenzae meningitis means we should prescribe antibiotics to everyone with a runny nose is a moron. PF Then the diagnosis of "viral" or "bacterial" is just an educated guess? Ora >>Is there a test to determine whether something is viral or bacterial? Or do >>doctors just say it is viral without really knowing or being able to find out? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >PF >Then the diagnosis of "viral" or "bacterial" is just an educated guess?< And most fights nowadays are between guardian reading middle class parents with children running high fevers and on the death bed (almost) who dont want the doctors to prescribe antibiotics for a 'viral' illness unless they have proof that it is a 'bacterial' illness which of course is impossible . This case is just the tip of the icebergs , every week hundreds of children are damaged for life . antibiotics are not going to hurt anything even if viral. Be safe than an academic nut. What else is an insurance for? > Then the diagnosis of "viral" or "bacterial" is just an educated guess? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > >PF >antibiotics are not going to hurt anything even if viral. Be safe than an >academic nut. What else is an insurance for? You are wrong, idiot. PF In soc.culture.british PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote: >>antibiotics are not going to hurt anything even if viral. Be safe than an >>academic nut. What else is an insurance for? > You are wrong, idiot. Impossible. Pradip Parekh aka 'harmony' is a highly educated Hindu well known for looking down his nose at educationally sub-par (com- pared to far right wing Hindus) ethnic groups, such as Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and whites. > PF SignatureFrom: "harmony" <aka@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Indian woman dies on husband's pyre Message-ID: <ulrbpeobg9po91@corp.supernews.com> >I am proud to be a member of mommedan parliament. >antibiotics are not going to hurt anything even if viral. Be safe than an >academic nut. What else is an insurance for? Hi ho, another idiot who's never heard of antibiotic resistance sticks his head up... -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT) >Then the diagnosis of "viral" or "bacterial" is just an educated guess? Viral or bacterial WHAT? Sore throat? Pink eye? Meningitis? Joint infection? Skin rash? Diarrhea? Urinary tract infection? Bactermia? Liver abscess? Thyroiditis? PF >>Then the diagnosis of "viral" or "bacterial" is just an educated guess? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >PF According to the original post: Haemophilus Influenza Type B - known as HIB - and septicaemia. A doctor said the child had a virus and advised her parents to give her Calpol. Thirty-six hours later Lydia's temperature rose to 41.5C - and again a doctor at the hospital said there was no reason to worry. Next morning hairdresser Jodie rang her GP and asked him to visit, but he was too busy. That evening she got an appointment to see the GP and when a nurse saw Lydia, she immediately called an ambulance. Doctors at Bristol Children's Hospital diagnosed Haemophilus Influenza Type B - known as HIB - and septicaemia. Hib is a major cause of bacterial meningitis. Ora In soc.culture.british PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote: >>Is there a test to determine whether something is viral or bacterial? Or do >>doctors just say it is viral without really knowing or being able to find out? > The "test" is a thorough history and physical examination by a > knowledgeable and experienced physician. The original poster who > thinks that this unusual case of gross misdiagnosis of H. influenzae > meningitis means we should prescribe antibiotics to everyone with a > runny nose is a moron. Impossible. Habshi is a highly educated Hindu, well known for looking down his nose at whites, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and other educationally sub-par groups. > PF SignatureFrom: "harmony" <aka@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Indian woman dies on husband's pyre Message-ID: <ulrbpeobg9po91@corp.supernews.com> >I am proud to be a member of mommedan parliament. >From: pfriley@watt-not.com >means we should prescribe antibiotics to everyone with a >runny nose is a moron. Ummm Jeff prior to *about 1990 Everyone DID get antibiotics for EVERTHING including running noses. The notion of super bacteria became a big issue about then and only then did the rampant overprescribing of these drugs begin to decline. Funny how people can go from educated HAWvid trained physician to a complete moron in slightly over a decade *sigh > >From: pfriley@watt-not.com > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > *sigh Gee. Did chiropractors know about this before? (Other than in the way you all "know" that most things real doctors do are bad.) Evidence based medicine constantly works to correct past mistakes. Does chiropractic do this? What things has chiropractic abandoned recently when it found they were ineffective? What things has it admitted were bad ideas since its creation? le moo > Funny how people can go from educated HAWvid trained physician to a > complete moron in slightly over a decade If you lived 2,000 years ago and thought the world was flat, you might not be a moron. If you believe the world is flat today, you're a moron. Period. >Gee. Did chiropractors know about this before? It is far easier to be critical than to be correct. PF >From: "Happy Dog" >Date: 12/25/2003 Doc wrote: Ummm Jeff prior to *about 1990 >> Everyone DID get antibiotics for EVERTHING including running noses. Dawg wrote: >Gee. Did chiropractors know about this before? Yes Yes we did. Evidence based >medicine constantly works to correct past mistakes. You mean kill off enough people before admitting that we goofed? What things has chiropractic abandoned recently when it found they >were ineffective? Nothing. Nothing at all . Chiropractors adjust spines, correct subluxations which reduces abnormal pressue on the DRG, reduces aberant prorioceptive input into the DRG and facillitates proprioceptive input into the cord. (But you knew that) >>What things has it admitted were bad ideas since its creation? "It" as you say "admits" nothing The Profession as a whole however would admit that rotational manuevers can be problematic. Thats why there is a great emphasis on effective comfortable non-torque techniques. Merry Christmas "KyroDoc" <kyrodoc@aol.com> wrote in message > >Gee. Did chiropractors know about this before? > Yes Yes we did. Show me the sites that Chiropractic knew of the danger of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics before real doctors did. > Evidence based > >medicine constantly works to correct past mistakes. > > You mean kill off enough people before admitting that we goofed? No. > What things has chiropractic abandoned recently when it found they > >were ineffective? > > Nothing. Nothing at all. IOW, chiropractic has made no mistakes which require correcting. None. > Chiropractors adjust spines, correct subluxations > which reduces abnormal pressue on the DRG, reduces aberant prorioceptive input > into the DRG and facillitates proprioceptive input into the cord. > (But you knew that) Which does almost nothing for non-musculoskeletal pathology thet chiropractic can prove. Impressive. > >>What things has it admitted were bad ideas since its creation? > > "It" as you say "admits" nothing The Profession as a whole however would admit > that rotational manuevers can be problematic. Thats why there is a great > emphasis on effective comfortable non-torque techniques. That's it? Godlike. le moo > Doctor's refusal >From: "Happy Dog" >Show me the sites that Chiropractic knew of the danger of bacteria become >resistant to antibiotics before real doctors did. So sorry HD Your going to have to pick up somr books to read that kind of stuff. I know Dr. Harrison railed against them as early as the 70's >> You mean kill off enough people before admitting that we goofed? > >No. Errr Yes. Then its written off as "good science" >IOW, chiropractic has made no mistakes which require correcting. None. Yes. It has made one mistake and that is to allow certain segments of the profession to try and practice medicine which should be left up to the infinitely more qualified medical professional. >Which does almost nothing for non-musculoskeletal pathology thet >chiropractic can prove. 20 million per year for research and clinical trials aint much kid...but we are getting there. But then again 30 million patients cant ALL be wrong heh heh. >>From: "Happy Dog" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >So sorry HD Your going to have to pick up somr books to read that kind of >stuff. I know Dr. Harrison railed against them as early as the 70's So it only took chiros 40 years to figure it out? Fleming knew about bacterial resistance in the 1930s soon after he discovered penicillin. Doctors have known this for almost 60 years. Their only mistake was believing that a endless stream of new antibiotics would enable them to stay ahead of the problem. Were it not for HIV and advances in treatments for cancer and other disorders that created a large population of immunocompromised patients (who would have simply been dead in earlier years), it's quite possible they would have been right. In that sense, the lesson of antibiotic resistance is really just a consequence of success. >>IOW, chiropractic has made no mistakes which require correcting. None. > >Yes. It has made one mistake and that is to allow certain segments of the >profession to try and practice medicine which should be left up to the >infinitely more qualified medical professional. Only one? Really now. So I guess strokes caused by cervical adjustments don't count. And the chiropractor who failed to recognized my father's DVT and broke it loose... does that count? BOXMAN MAN OF 2004 http://tinyurl.com/24mb9 BOXMAN MAN OF 2004 http://tinyurl.com/24mb9 >From: Carey Gregory >And the chiropractor who failed to recognized my father's DVT >and broke it loose... does that count? I dont know..I'd like to know more though........ >>From: Carey Gregory > >>And the chiropractor who failed to recognized my father's DVT >>and broke it loose... does that count? > >I dont know..I'd like to know more though........ Nice snippage. What about strokes and cervical manipulation? >From: Carey >And the chiropractor who failed to recognized my father's DVT >>>and broke it loose... does that count? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes I think somewhere in the order of 1 chance in a million or 2 million perhaps. and always when rotational manuevers are utilized. Is yur Dad ok? >Yes I think somewhere in the order of 1 chance in a million or 2 million >perhaps. and always when rotational manuevers are utilized. As I recall, there's some debate about the numbers. Regardless, one would certainly hope that catastrophic results from a non-essential procedure would be measured in numbers approaching zero. >Is yur Dad ok? Depends on your definition of "ok." He's been dead over 10 years. During tx for cancer he developed upper leg pain and saw a chiro without first consulting his doc. The chiro did manipulations on his upper legs which he described as some sort of deep massage. Only afterward was it discovered he had DVTs in his femoral vein. The signs were apparent and should have been enough to clue the chiro in that he needed to rule out DVT before doing any sort of massage or manipulation. Incredibly dangerous thing to do. >From: Carey Gregory >The chiro did manipulations on his upper legs That is unusual to say the least. >Incredibly dangerous thing to do. agreed. Sorry about your Dad Greg. "KyroDoc" <kyrodoc@aol.com> wrote in message n > >Show me the sites that Chiropractic knew of the danger of bacteria become > >resistant to antibiotics before real doctors did. > > So sorry HD Your going to have to pick up somr books to read that kind of > stuff. > I know Dr. Harrison railed against them as early as the 70's Be specific. You made about chiropractors and antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. If it's that easy to prove, just post it. < chirp > > >IOW, chiropractic has made no mistakes which require correcting. None. > > Yes. It has made one mistake and that is to allow certain segments of the > profession to try and practice medicine which should be left up to the > infinitely more qualified medical professional. One mistake. That it? Of the entire body of knowledge that chiropractic takes credit for, since a hundred years ago, this is the *only* thing? > >Which does almost nothing for non-musculoskeletal pathology thet > >chiropractic can prove. > > 20 million per year for research and clinical trials aint much kid...but we are > getting there. Show us what you got. > But then again 30 million patients cant ALL be wrong heh heh. There's a name for that fallacy. You know it? le moo >"KyroDoc" <kyrodoc@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Evidence based >> >medicine constantly works to correct past mistakes. Which antibiotics? Which bacteria. The same antibiotics are being prescribed today that were being prescribed 40-50 years ago. They are still working. But since there are many more antibiotics out there now how could they be accepted at their astronomical prices if some kind souls didn 't inform everyone that the old antibiotics were not working. Ora <taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message news: > >> Evidence based > >> >medicine constantly works to correct past mistakes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > out there now how could they be accepted at their astronomical prices if some > kind souls didn 't inform everyone that the old antibiotics were not working. If your point is that new drugs are aggressively marketed and old one's aren't, say so. Had, if your point is that prescribing doctors just don;t get it, than say so again. You may be right. Or you may be clueless about antibiotics and prescribing practices. le moo ><taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message news: >> >> Evidence based [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >le moo My point is that we are being told that bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics but if that is true why are the same "old" antibiotics still being used against the same "old" bacteria. Again, which antibiotics and which bacteria. Ora <taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message news: > My point is that we are being told that bacteria have become resistant to > antibiotics but if that is true why are the same "old" antibiotics still being > used against the same "old" bacteria. Some are. Some aren't. But, generally, it's better to limit the use of the newest antibiotics whenever possible to delay the inevitable evolution of resistant strains. BTW, it isn't the "drug companies" that are pushing this reality on doctors. It's the other way around. > Again, which antibiotics and which bacteria. It isn't that brand new kinds of bacteria are being spontaneously created by antibiotics. It's just natural selection in action. You must be aware that some insects evolve to be resistant to certain pesticides. Simple stuff. le moo >My point is that we are being told that bacteria have become resistant to >antibiotics but if that is true why are the same "old" antibiotics still being >used against the same "old" bacteria. Because there are untold numbers of variants of each species of bacteria. Some strains have developed resistance in varying degrees. Some haven't. And those that have will tend to lose it over time if not exposed to that particular antibiotic. Some of the "old" antibiotics are still the most effective against certain species *if* the strain involved doesn't happen to be highly resistant to that particular antibiotic. And even if resistance has developed, it's often not complete. Higher dosages and/or longer courses are often still effective. > Again, which antibiotics and which bacteria. Your question seems to suggest that you assume all bacteria of a given species are genetically identical. That would be a wrong assumption. >>My point is that we are being told that bacteria have become resistant to >>antibiotics but if that is true why are the same "old" antibiotics still being [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Your question seems to suggest that you assume all bacteria of a given >species are genetically identical. That would be a wrong assumption. It doesn't matter because apparently no one knows which bacteria of which species would respond to a particular antibiotic. Or if anyone knows they are not telling. Or maybe the new antibiotics respond to new found bacteria so they are automatically prescribed for all the old bacteria along with whatever new ones come along. For example if a person has bronchitis and one of the new antibiotics are effective against bronchitis, it is automatically prescribed even though one of the older antibiotic which involve a fraction of the cost would be effective against bronchitis. Seems pretty dishonest to me because some people cannot afford the new antibiotics. Ora <taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message news: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:43:09 -0500, Carey Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> > >Your question seems to suggest that you assume all bacteria of a given > >species are genetically identical. That would be a wrong assumption. > > It doesn't matter because apparently no one knows which bacteria of which > species would respond to a particular antibiotic. Or if anyone knows they are > not telling. What? This information is available to, and regularly used by, any MD. How do you think doctors decide which antibiotic to prescribe for a particular infection? > Or maybe the new antibiotics respond to new found bacteria so they are > automatically prescribed for all the old bacteria along with whatever new ones > come along. For example if a person has bronchitis and one of the new > antibiotics are effective against bronchitis, it is automatically prescribed > even though one of the older antibiotic which involve a fraction of the cost > would be effective against bronchitis. Absolutely not. If there's no reason to suspect that a strain resistant to older, and cheaper, antibiotics is the culprit then older antibiotics are prescribed. > Seems pretty dishonest to me because some people cannot afford the new > antibiotics. Where are you getting your information from? le moo ><taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message news: >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:43:09 -0500, Carey Gregory [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >do you think doctors decide which antibiotic to prescribe for a particular >infection? I expect that they all have their own criteria. I suggest you ask your own doctor how he decides which antibiotic to prescribe since I have no idea how untold doctors decide. >> Or maybe the new antibiotics respond to new found bacteria so they are >> automatically prescribed for all the old bacteria along with whatever new [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >le moo <taurusrc@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >What? This information is available to, and regularly used by, any MD. How > >do you think doctors decide which antibiotic to prescribe for a particular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > doctor how he decides which antibiotic to prescribe since I have no idea how > untold doctors decide. Clearly. Not every doctor will prescribe exactly the same antibiotic for a particular infection. But they don't have individual agendas. le moo ><taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message news: >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:43:09 -0500, Carey Gregory [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >do you think doctors decide which antibiotic to prescribe for a particular >infection? I expect that they all have their own criteria. I suggest you ask your own doctor how he decides which antibiotic to prescribe since I have no idea how untold doctors decide. >> Or maybe the new antibiotics respond to new found bacteria so they are >> automatically prescribed for all the old bacteria along with whatever new [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >le moo >It doesn't matter because apparently no one knows which bacteria of which >species would respond to a particular antibiotic. Or if anyone knows they are >not telling. Of course they know and of course they're "telling." No, your doctor might not know if the specific infection you have is resistant to a particular antibiotic until he tries it or sends a sample to a lab for testing, but he certainly knows which antibiotics usually work best against which bugs, which ones are more likely to be resistant, and to which antibiotics. >Or maybe the new antibiotics respond to new found bacteria so they are >automatically prescribed for all the old bacteria along with whatever new ones >come along. For example if a person has bronchitis and one of the new >antibiotics are effective against bronchitis, it is automatically prescribed >even though one of the older antibiotic which involve a fraction of the cost >would be effective against bronchitis. Or maybe he knows that resistance to an older antibiotic is likely in the disease you have and doesn't think it's wise to spend 2 weeks using you as a culture dish to find out. He could send a sample off to find out much sooner, but odds are your insurance won't pay for that. You could offer to pay for the lab work yourself, but of course that will offset the savings of cheaper antibiotics. >Seems pretty dishonest to me because some people cannot afford the new >antibiotics. Giving patients antibiotics that don't work is even more expensive, even if they're free. How many expensive antibiotics does it take to equal one additional day of lost work, or one day in a hospital getting your raging super-infection treated? Sure, some doctors go right to the heavy-hitters right away without considering cheaper alternatives, but most try to balance cost and effectiveness. >>It doesn't matter because apparently no one knows which bacteria of which >>species would respond to a particular antibiotic. Or if anyone knows they are [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >considering cheaper alternatives, but most try to balance cost and >effectiveness. The ones who go for the heavy-hitters right away need to have a little more training it seems to me. Why isn't there some kind of ethical standards for such things? You say MOST try to balance cost and effectiveness. How do you know that? I wonder if it is actually the case. Ora > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:28:39 -0500, Carey Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> > > The ones who go for the heavy-hitters right away need to have a little more > training it seems to me. Why isn't there some kind of ethical standards for > such things? You say MOST try to balance cost and effectiveness. How do you > know that? I wonder if it is actually the case. Well, let's say that you aren't a kid anymore and you have an infection that likely is treatable with an older cheaper antibiotic but definitely will be cleared by a newer, more expensive one. Assuming that you can afford either, what's *your* choice? le moo >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:28:39 -0500, Carey Gregory ><tiredofspam123@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >le moo No doctor has ever given me a choice. If one did, I would research it and make a decision. I have insurance and could likely afford either one but would probably choose the less expensive one if it was effective against whatever the doctor diagnosed, because that sort of thing is what drives up the insurance premiums. However once I had cystitis and went to the urgent care center. The doctor there was going to prescribe a new medication that I had never heard of. I told her that my insurance might not cover that one and she changed it to Bactrim which she said was the drug of choice and the cheapest one to boot. Ora <taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message > >Well, let's say that you aren't a kid anymore and you have an infection that > >likely is treatable with an older cheaper antibiotic but definitely will be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doctor diagnosed, because that sort of thing is what drives up the insurance > premiums. I meant that I suspect that most people would forego consideration for the well being of others and opt for the most powerful antibiotic if given the choice. What would you do? How does anyone know for sure, before treatment, that you aren't infected with a resistant strain of bacteria? > However once I had cystitis and went to the urgent care center. The doctor > there was going to prescribe a new medication that I had never heard of. I told > her that my insurance might not cover that one and she changed it to Bactrim > which she said was the drug of choice and the cheapest one to boot. Why did she recommend the other one? le moo ><taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message >> >Well, let's say that you aren't a kid anymore and you have an infection [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >le moo I didn't ask her. She had several choices and she just chose one of them I guess. Ora ><taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message >> >Well, let's say that you aren't a kid anymore and you have an infection [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >choice. What would you do? How does anyone know for sure, before >treatment, that you aren't infected with a resistant strain of bacteria? I have had undesirable reactions to some of the antibiotics, and am leery of trying out one of the new ones until I know how it could affect me. The most powerful antibiotic might have the most powerful side effects. I like to stay with the ones I have used before because I know what to expect. A year ago I had bronchitis and the doctor prescribed Biaxin. It caused me to have severe shortness of breath so he told me to stop taking it and to start taking Avelox. The shortness of breath got worse and I also developed eye blurring. Now I have asthma which started with those antibiotics. The blurring got steadily worse and I recently had to have a corneal transplant. So I am careful. Ora <taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message > >I meant that I suspect that most people would forego consideration for the > >well being of others and opt for the most powerful antibiotic if given the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So I am careful. You think this was caused by the antibiotics? le moo ><taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message >> >I meant that I suspect that most people would forego consideration for [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >le moo Yes, I do but that does not mean anything. I could be wrong and will never know because I will never take those antibiotics again. Ora <taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message > >> A year ago I had bronchitis and the doctor prescribed Biaxin. It caused > >me to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> > >You think this was caused by the antibiotics? > Yes, I do but that does not mean anything. I could be wrong and will never know > because I will never take those antibiotics again. Have you researched this to find out how likely this is? There are lots of good resources on the net. And you could ask the question here. erf ><taurusrc@aol.com> wrote in message >> >> A year ago I had bronchitis and the doctor prescribed Biaxin. It [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >erf Yes, I have researched it and it is definitely likely. The side effects are mentioned in some of the descriptions but not others. It is amazing what you find and do not find on the Web. I found one site which mentioned opacity of the cornea as a side effect of Biaxin but it involved trials with dogs at 12 times the dosage for humans. But apparently it is possible. See http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2000/50662S29lbl.pdf But the some of the asthma meds also cause blurring of vision, as well as eye drops with certain preservatives. So it was a "comedy of errors". Ora >>Sure, some doctors go right to the heavy-hitters right away without >>considering cheaper alternatives, but most try to balance cost and >>effectiveness. > >The ones who go for the heavy-hitters right away need to have a little more >training it seems to me. Perhaps. Or perhaps you need to make your preferences known. Most people just want their illness cured NOW with no further hassle and no consideration for the expense since they're not paying for most of it. Tell your doctor you want to take a chance on being sick longer and paying less money. You're the patient, after all. Your preferences rule if you simply insist on it. The other alternative is to eliminate medical insurance and have everyone start paying for their own care. I think you'll see the night-and-day difference in cost you're looking for. You'll see some other night-and-day differences too - and I hope you're ready for them - but it is an option society can choose. >Why isn't there some kind of ethical standards for >such things? There are. >You say MOST try to balance cost and effectiveness. How do you >know that? I wonder if it is actually the case. I don't have proof. I can only go on what I honestly believe to be the truth from my own experience. (I am not a doctor and I earn nothing from medicine in any way.) PS- Ask yourself this: Do you really think your insurance company is going to ignore graft and corruption between doctors and pharmaceutical companies and pay for it out of their own profits? >>>Sure, some doctors go right to the heavy-hitters right away without >>>considering cheaper alternatives, but most try to balance cost and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >money. You're the patient, after all. Your preferences rule if you simply >insist on it. Do you honestly believe that quality of medical care is synonymous with its cost? >The other alternative is to eliminate medical insurance and have everyone >start paying for their own care. I think you'll see the night-and-day >difference in cost you're looking for. You'll see some other night-and-day >differences too - and I hope you're ready for them - but it is an option >society can choose. Insurance spreads the money around among those who get sick and those who do not. I have paid out more in premiums than I ever received in benefits. Insurance companies would not stay in business if they did not make profits. If people started paying their own medical bills, some would pay and many more would not because they could not. >PS- Ask yourself this: Do you really think your insurance company is going >to ignore graft and corruption between doctors and pharmaceutical companies >and pay for it out of their own profits? They do what they can and raise premiums to take care of the rest. Ora >>Perhaps. Or perhaps you need to make your preferences known. Most people >>just want their illness cured NOW with no further hassle and no [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Do you honestly believe that quality of medical care is synonymous with its >cost? Quite often, yes, but you're the one griping about cost. I offered a practical solution. Take it or leave it. >>The other alternative is to eliminate medical insurance and have everyone >>start paying for their own care. I think you'll see the night-and-day [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If people started paying their own medical bills, some would pay and many more >would not because they could not. We all know how insurance works. Apparently you missed the point completely. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.