Forgot your password?

Re. medication requiring a prescription:

Displaying poll results.
Take them seldom - and glad of it.
  13685 votes / 48%
Take them seldom, but might upgrade.
  851 votes / 2%
Take 1 or 2 drugs regularly.
  5135 votes / 18%
Take 3 to 5 drugs regularly.
  1816 votes / 6%
Take more than 5 drugs regularly.
  877 votes / 3%
I abstain completely.
  6098 votes / 21%
28462 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Re. medication requiring a prescription:

Comments Filter:
  • Oh crap (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16, 2011 @01:47AM (#36783264)

    A poll on pharmaceuticals. How long until the resident chiropractic looney tune shows up to grace us all with a nice heaping helping of nuclear grade crazy?

    I use bed meds. I don't like using them, but it's better than having to drive while half asleep the next day. Going to give melatonin a shot, see if that works better.

    • Don't forget about the tinfoil hat wearing /. community that insists that pharmaceuticals are a plot by the government to brainwash you into buying American products so they can spy on you.

      *pops meds*

      Man I feel like getting some Coke from McDonalds. TTYL /.
    • I've never tried any prescription sleep meds, but I use melatonin on occasion. When taken as usually directed (30 mins before bedtime, and probably want to avoid bright lights and such in that time), it works pretty impressively, for me.
    • by mhotchin (791085)

      When I tried melatonin, it put me to sleep pretty well, but it also had a tendancy to wake me too early (about six hours later - *much* too little sleep for me!)

    • by hedwards (940851)

      Assuming no sleep disorder, My Zeo [] is quite useful in working with poor quality of sleep.

      Also, I found my chiropractor helped quite a bit with my sleep apnea. Not even joking, once that passageway opened up in my neck, my sleep got a lot better.

  • I'm taking estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone blockers as part of hormone replacement therapy, along with anti-anxiety meds due to longstanding anxiety issues.

    Going slightly off topic, one of the things that frustrated me during the debates about healthcare in the '08 election was how folks (I particularly remember McCain) would talk about the free market. If insurance companies won't insure you (due to preexisting conditions) the free market kinda fails for that consumer, doesn't it? Whether or not a business should be required to take a customer - which is what banning preexisting condition refusals would mean - is a different question, but don't pretend the 'free market' can automatically solve everything for everyone.

    More broadly speaking, the healthcare debate following Obama's election once again frustrated me due to its language. Lets be honest: I and others like me who have preexisting, chronic conditions don't need insurance, to insure us against catastrophe, we need assurance, assurance we'll have help paying for medication and treatment we can't always afford. Because yeah, from an insurance company's point of view, I'm a shitty costumer. They know they're gonna have to pay out, $X, monthly, for the rest of my life. If I were running an insurance company, I sure wouldn't want trans clients (or clients with cancer, or diabetes, or any other chronic condition). Where's the money in that?

    What I would have liked to see the debate be about instead was what type of medical care, as a society, do we want to provide to people who can't afford it? What do we do with them? Who - at the end of the day - pays for their treatment? That would at least be an honest discussion about values, instead of a veiled discussion about false rhetoric.


    • by adolf (21054)

      Are you trolling, or are you actually trying to be transsexual?

      If the former, please go away.

      If the latter: I will be the first to admit that I don't really understand that concept. I just can't get my head completely wrapped around it. Based on my (perhaps willful) ignorance, I don't know that I want to pay for you to be transgendered. I'm not for it, and I'm not opposed to it: I frankly haven't put any thought into the concept until just now.

      And I suspect a lot of others would feel the same way, righ

      • Based on my (perhaps willful) ignorance, I don't know that I want to pay for you to be transgendered.

        Allow me to take a guess at the rationale: A patient has gender identity disorder. If allowing a person to put on the secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex improves the person's welfare and thus the person's contribution to the economy, provide the change.

        (Just as a girl who feels she's grossly inadequate because of her bustline might, indeed, have a real (and physically treatable!) psychological issue.

        I guess in some cases, treatment of body dysmorphic disorder, body integrity identity disorder, etc. is cheaper and more effective to do with the scalpel than with medication. Brain won't accept or can't control a limb? Cut off the limb Ertl st []

      • . I just can't get my head completely wrapped around it. Based on my (perhaps willful) ignorance, I don't know that I want to pay for you to be transgendered. I'm not for it, and I'm not opposed to it: I frankly haven't put any thought into the concept until just now.

        I respect someone who can say "I haven't thought much about this, so I don't have a huge opinion." Let me try to lay out where I'm coming from.

        First, being trans (or gender identity disorder, GID) is listed in the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM) [], published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). While I have some issues with GID's listing, I'd rather go with the APA's view of what should and shouldn't be treatable than the general public's. That's why we have doctors, and don't make medical decisions based on democratic vote.

        But I know appealing to authority - "The doctors say it's real!" - isn't going to convince anyone it's real. So lets talk about what it means to be trans, and why it's different from " a girl who feels she's grossly inadequate because of her bustline."

        I The largest difference, I would say, is the pervasiveness. Very often, trans people (myself included) were aware of their gender incongruity long before puberty. Being trans isn't a 'sex' thing, it's an identity thing. Similarly, I - and most trans people I know - would continue on hormones and presenting as I identify, even if I were the last person on earth. Because it's about me, not solely about how others perceive me.

        Likewise, transitioning works. For myself and for lots of other people. Where ex-gay therapies and the like fail, time and time again, a caring and appropriate medical team to help with a transition (or, for gay folks, a caring and appropriate therapist to help with coming out and feeling accepted) have better results than 'fixing the problem.

        As for worrying about people doing something just for kicks, that's an issue right now with certain painkillers. But rather than saying "No one can have opiates," we regulate them and have medical providers help determine what's medically necessary. But I really think that's an unrealistic worry. (As a side note, I think we should be moving toward a more informed consent [] model for helping trans people, but that's a different conversation.)

        If you're interested in more information as to why this is an important issue, check out Injustice at Every Turn [], a report on trans Americans' experiences. Some 'fun' statistics: 90% of trans people have been harassed or discriminated against at a job, and 26% (including me!) have been fired because their trans. 28% have been harassed by a medical provider, and 19% have been refused service outright. And 41% have attempted suicide, versus 1.6% of the general population.


        • Cool.

          Sorry for the late response, but I figure you'll read it eventually anyway.

          I think having it listed in the DSM (I didn't know that it was) is a good step forward toward general acceptance, especially when it comes to the question of "who shall pay for the bill."

          Your commentary, along with the numerous passivising retorts I got for my "just for kicks" comment, along with a bit of time to have actually given it some thought myself, tells me this: If we can pay to treat depression, we can pay to treat transgenders. It appears that both can be very serious problems if left untreated. (I could pick other examples to compare with, also, but that'd just be beleaguering the point.)

          This, of course, leads to another discussion about healthcare in general, as we don't generally pay for either of these things as a public except in extreme cases of indigence, disability, or age.

          Which I think is a shame. I don't begrudge the healthy people of the world for being healthy: I, for one, with my $9/month prescription for antidepressants, am also generally healthy and would be a contributing member. The healthy (myself included!) should support the unhealthy to help them become more healthy and, dare I say, happy[1]. Doing so will make them more productive, and everyone wins.

          So, anyway: You've answered my mini-quandary, and I will be happy to help pay for your treatment if public health care ever becomes a real thing in the US.

          Good luck, and thanks for the insight.

          [1]: Which is really the whole point of this existence, anyway: Happiness, however it comes.

      • I mean: Plainly, it's all in your head...but that doesn't make it any less of a real issue. (Just as a girl who feels she's grossly inadequate because of her bustline might, indeed, have a real (and physically treatable!) psychological issue.)

        Nearly 5 decades of psychiatric experience and research has almost the opposite view. Transsexualism cannot be "cured" by psychotherapy, and you cannot force a change in a person's gender identity. It is as futile as trying to turn gay people straight. The only known t

    • If insurance companies won't insure you (due to preexisting conditions) the free market kinda fails for that consumer, doesn't it?

      There's no such thing as the free market once insurance companies get involved.

      In a market where many end-users pay via insurance, the price is no longer based on what the user can afford, but on what the insurance company is willing to pay out. Indeed, it is very much in the interests of the insurance company for prices to be beyond the means of the end user, lest people might be tempted to do without insurance. Logically, the insurance company needs to make sure that its premiums more than cover its liab

      • by Teun (17872)
        State health insurance is not needed, state control is sufficient.

        Just ban the commercial insurers from refusing clients and set some minimal but necessary level of cover, leave the price and extras to the companies.

        • by itsdapead (734413)

          State health insurance is not needed, state control is sufficient.

          Just ban the commercial insurers from refusing clients and set some minimal but necessary level of cover, leave the price and extras to the companies.

          ...which would almost certainly require huge subsidies from the state, because not being able to mitigate your risk by refusing to insure high-risk cases (or effectively refusing them by charging sky-high premiums) would be intolerable for insurance companies. As another poster has pointed out: taking small amounts of money from people that you know are going to need big payouts just isn't insurance. There would be a constant legislative battle to stop insurers finding end-runs around the requirement (e.g.

    • by Teun (17872)
      One of the original proposals by Obama was to follow the Dutch system where insurers cannot refuse to take on a client, that makes for a plain level playing field.

      Insurers should only compete on price and extras, not by cherry picking their clients or offering too little cover.

  • in my country, you dont need a prescription for prescription drugs (:

  • Pffffftttt. Oh man, dude. I totally have a prescription for this. Pfffffttt, . Like, my eyes are totally messed up, I've got the glaucoma, I swear! Pfffffffffffffffffftttt. Oh wow, the colors, man!

    Where are the Doritos?
  • Only one, Concerta (methylphenidate aka ritalin) against ADD, 54 mg/day. I've been lucky to avoid any detectable cardiovascular or mental side effects. I've been mismedicated twice though, once with the SSRI antideppressant sertraline (against mild OCD and not deppression, resulting in apathy making me unable/unwilling to work or study by removing my "sense of stress") and once with noradrenaline-raising medication (atomoxetine AKA strattera) which put me into some sort of mild confusion state that had me p
    • by nido (102070)

      Ray Peat has some choice words about how the pharmaceutical industry dropped their old anti-depressants when they lost patent protection, and campaigned to move everyone to the "new & improved" serotonin reuptake inhibitors:

      The “serotonin reuptake inhibitors” are called the “third generation” of antidepressants. The monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors, that came into use in the 1950s, are called the “first generation.” When their patents expire on a “generation

    • by jamesh (87723)

      Been there. Ritalin was great... I mean really really got me focused. OTOH, I'd never really had caffeine before and the first time I tried Red Bull the effect was indistinguishable. Then I tried an SSRI... forget what it was called... for social anxiety. It didn't really seem to help in a good way, I just stopped caring about things, and made it hard to sleep which made everything else worse. And then stopping taking them wasn't a whole lot of fun either. Thankfully I didn't have half the problems you had.

      • For the Concerta, sure. And blood pressure/pulse checks. I even have to call in every time I need a new prescription. For the SSRI, nope. I'm not sure what to expect in terms of competence really, and since I'm a low-affect kind of guy ("Asperger structure in the personality" is the tentative diagnosis, explained as "you don't understand or relate to people like the average person but you function really rather surprisingly well and a full asperger investigation would take months and require a specialist, w
  • If it were up to me, I wouldn't take anything. When I'm sick I rarely take anything... usually it's just when I'm sick AND having a hard time sleeping that I will take something to knock me out.

    I do have to take 1 pill each day for high blood pressure, though. I have an active lifestyle, it's just always something that's been high. I'm not obese, though I could stand to lose 10lbs around my gut (who couldn't?).
  • I take prednisone (corticosteroid) long term. That causes bone loss, so I have to take Sodium Alendronate. If my parents are any indication, it only gets more involved with age. It's a creepy cascade of dependence on the medical industry. My doctor says it's better than the alternative, but I long for the days of being an independent free range monkey.
  • Primarily because it prevents seizures, but the mood stabilisation aspect of it is awesome. This is my second stretch on this particular drug. The last time was in my early 20s and I built a house before I came off the medication. This time around I hope I stay on long enough to organise the garage, find a new job, buy a few investment properties and clean up my wardrobe before I drop back into unmedicated dithering.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    A lot of people deserve the diseases they get from neglecting themselves... having that in mind healthy/active living didn't stop me from inhering a genetic disease. 3 very strong medicines that keep me alive but don't really do enough, just waiting for a cure which doesn't look anywhere on the horizon.

    QUESTION FOR BIOLOGISTS: Is there any hope with the DIY community in general since I've seen it mentioned before here? Point being look at hwo Penicillin and some other drugs were invented, more or less one v

    • by mauthbaux (652274) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @01:11PM (#36786928) Homepage
      Biologist here, and currently employed by a major pharma company.
      From what I've seen, the major cost in developing new treatments is in clinical trials. The R&D work is comparatively cheap. The major obstacles for a DIYer in developing a treatment are 1: producing and purifying enough of the substance to test. 2: demonstrating that the treatment is safe (phase 1 of a clinical trial) and 3: demonstrating that the treatment is effective (phase 2 of a clinical trial). As a DIYer, the typical clinical trials can be supplanted with trials in animal models (if available) until a major pharma company buys it up to fund the actual trials. The process can be expedited a little bit if you get what's known as "Orphan Drug Status" (i.e. nobody else is working on this illness since there's probably no money in it) which can grant you additional funding, and streamlines the FDA's approval process; but it's still not a guaranty of any sort.
      Now, if a DIYer comes up with an effective treatment, and can produce it consistently at reasonable concentrations, then open-sources the formulation and production method, I'd still expect the FDA to step in to try and regulate it. Concerning your penicillin example, even though the molecule and production methods are well known, it's not something that the average joe can produce at home (not at therapeutic doses anyway), and it's still not something that can be sold over the counter. DIY biotech therapeutics is a good starting point, but it won't get to market without FDA approval, which, thanks to the cost of clinical trials, basically requires corporate sponsorship.
  • It keeps me breathin'.
  • I don't even like taking over the counter medications.

    I prefer to kill my liver the old-fashioned way -- with alcohol.

  • by Frequency Domain (601421) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @02:38PM (#36787596)
  • So multiple times, every day, for the rest of my life. Right now I have exactly 1. A few years ago, I had two. If two or even five made it more manageable, I'd take that many. The impact of fast-acting insulin and the ensuring quality-of-life improvements it brings has made me much less cynical towards the pharmaceutical industry.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @02:00AM (#36791050)

      Prescription drugs are not a lifestyle choice, they aren't something you do for fun, or "abstain" from to be a good person or tough guy or something. They are there to deal with medical issues. If you don't need any, that's wonderful. However if you do there is no shame in it, nothing wrong, it is just that your body has a problem, one that science can help. Better that than having a problem which science cannot, of which there are still many.

      Now that isn't to say that people don't abuse various drugs, of course, but that is completely separate from proper use. If you need a drug, then you should take it.

      I've always found this attitude stupid, particularly since if you live to an old age, you almost certainly will be on some drugs regularly. As the body ages and has more troubles, drugs are often needed to help. If you are lucky, your conditions are ones that we have developed drugs to treat.

      I've seen the other side of it, my grandma has Alzheimer's, and it is progressing pretty rapidly. I doubt she'll know who she is in a year. Unfortunately, there are no effective drug treatments for it, there is nothing that can be done except to watch her slowly lose her mind.

      Were there a drug that could treat it, there would be no shame in taking it, and no pride in "abstaining".

      Diabetes is an excellent example. Prior to insulin, people used to die from it. If you developed it, you had a death sentence. You could prolong your life a bit with some dietary changes, but you were going to die from it, and usually go blind first. Now, people can live full lives because of it (and some other medications).

      If you don't need any drugs, by all means don't take any and be glad. However don't "abstain" if you do need them. The increases in length and quality of life we have are not coincidence, they are a result of medical science and drugs are a part of that.

      Don't abstain from a medication that manages a condition any more than you'd abstain from a antibiotic that saves your life from an infection.

  • I expected to see an "Only Recreationally" option.
  • I had to take Oxycontin for 2 days once because of a knee surgery. I didn't feel any pain, but was a complete wreck and was either sleeping or hallucinating the whole time. I have no idea how oxy addicts function.

  • I had surgery less than a week ago, so I have to take two or three types of pain-killers (three in an emergency) and anti-inflammatory pills, pills against nausea and sickness and I also take shots against blod-clots. All on prescription.

    However, I am starting to suspect that my sickess is in hole or in part caused by the pain-killers themselves, so I am going to try to have them changed tomorrow.
    I don't take any drugs normally.

  • by 1s44c (552956) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @11:22AM (#36792776)

    I understand that some people need drugs for medical conditions, but there is no way 77% of slashdot readers have such conditions.

    This is BS. There must be one hell of a lot of people taking drugs they should not be on.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.


Forgot your password?