Soon to need a prescription for Nurofen/Solphadine/etc?

Owwmykneecap

I've got the MC1R gene, I don't feel pain.

Now where are my nurofen.

Jaxxy

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

But the whole point is, a lot of people take painkillers when they're really not in that much pain. I've seen it over and over, working in offices, Oh I have a bit of a twinge, let's reach for the Nurofen.

Oh I've seen it myself. And in answer to repeat myself again, it is their prerogative. You're not qualified to judge whether or not their "twinge" warrants a painkiller. Only the individual or the individual's physician is.

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

No-one is saying that. Painkillers are for migraines. They're not for a bit of a headache or a hangover. IMO. I do agree with the poster who said a lot of people just reach for painkillers way too easily rather than seeing them as a last resort. I have a lot of aches and pains from long term health issues, if I took a painkiller for every twinge, I'd be strung out 24/7. I find that most of the time, a glass of water, a short nap, a walk, makes me feel significantly better, then when I really need painkillers, they actually work.

But again it all depends on the individual. A walk/hot water bottle/cup of something soothing like tea might work for me for my menstrual cramps, but it might not necessarily work for someone else. The information is out there, there are warnings and if the warnings aren't heeded then they have nobody to blame but themselves. Education is key here, not blanket bans. In the regulated, advised dosage these medications do no longterm harm.

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

But people taking painkillers like sweets is a massive problem. That's why these guidelines have come in. They don't benefit the pharmacies in any way. They make more money by selling more drugs. You might not abuse painkillers but a hell of a lot of people do, and most of them are in total denial about it.

Like I've said before I have no problems with the guidelines, warnings or getting a third degree from my pharmacist. That wasn't what prompted me to post in this thread initially, it was the attitudes and the automatic assumption that someone could be branded an "addict" so easily and without justifiable cause.

drkpower wrote: »

This is the type of attitude which these regulations are intended to combat. The problem is that many many people are not aware of the addictive potential of these medications. Or more accurately, they are aware of them, but do not truly understand what they mean. There are far far more people who are addicted to codeine (or benzodiazepines) than actually realise they are.

If we are to put such dangerous substances on the market, there is an obligation to ensure that they are properly regulated and that mechanisms are in place to combat the risks. To simply put these products on the market with no restrictions/regulations would be irresponsible. Making certain drugs prescription-only is one such mechanism. Making a drug a 'controlled' drug is another. In the case of codeine, we have this 'pharmacist consultation' process. It is a very very small inconvenience. If you consider it a significant inconvenience, you are probably one of the people the process is intended to weed out.

Never said I was inconvenienced by it. In actual fact I've said in a previous post to this one, and above that this "pharmacist consultation" process wasn't an issue for me. Might be an idea to hop down off your soap box for a minute and actually read my posts before you jump in with your assumptions.

If we were to take your attitude toward every addictive substance on the market drkpower, then we'd need permission to consume pretty much everything the majority of the population consumes in this country today. People can become addicted to anything through prolonged usage. McDonalds, smoking, alcohol, sugars. I even know someone addicted to spearmint polo mints. Nurofen and solpadeine have been readily available for a long time. Was that irresponsible? I'd be more inclined to argue that it is irresponsible of the user to overuse such medications.

Control the use of the drug to an extent, sure. But making it available only by prescription is extreme in my opinion. I, for one, am capable of making my own decisions about what I put into my body. I don't judge people who smoke or drink, or people who take a couple of nurofen to combat a headache. I'd expect the same in return.

policeman

Stark wrote: »

Half of them are posting in this thread. Box of 24 just not doing enough for you?.

How's the view up there? It must be great being so superior and strong willed. I wish we could all be like that:eek:

Timistry

Soon you will need a perscription to take a dump

bleg

Timistry wrote: »

Soon you will need a perscription to take a dump

Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You will be simply warned that you shouldn't take more than 5 dumps a day.

Kurtosis

policeman wrote: »

We all live in a body that constantly says to us "I want endorphins/dopamine dammit!-I don't care how you do it!"

So, some people masturbate, or have sex all the time.Others do strenuous exercise.

The rest like the plink plink fizz approach:D

policeman wrote: »

Of course,but the paracetamol and ibuprofen does most of the damage

All part of the package I'm afraid. If people want to abuse medicines to stimulate their pleasure centres, then they have to accept all the consequences. Same way those who run for their endorphin rush might get sore knees or stub their toe while they're out.

drkpower

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

If we were to take your attitude toward every addictive substance on the market drkpower, then we'd need permission to consume pretty much everything the majority of the population consumes in this country today. People can become addicted to anything through prolonged usage. McDonalds, smoking, alcohol, sugars. I even know someone addicted to spearmint polo mints. Nurofen and solpadeine have been readily available for a long time. Was that irresponsible? I'd be more inclined to argue that it is irresponsible of the user to overuse such medications..

I dont think you understand the nature of addiction.

But, you do realise that the food market is already regulated; and more is on the way. We regulate markets in different ways; just because someone in Tesco doesnt quiz you before you buy a curly-wurly doesnt mean that the food market is regulated and controlled.

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

Control the use of the drug to an extent, sure. But making it available only by prescription is extreme in my opinion. I, for one, am capable of making my own decisions about what I put into my body. I don't judge people who smoke or drink, or people who take a couple of nurofen to combat a headache. I'd expect the same in return.

Control it but let me make my own decisions. You seem confused.

It isnt about judging. It is about protecting. If we put dangerous substances, or treatments, on the market, we have an obligation to ensure they are not abuised to the detriment of the user. The relative inconvenience to the consumer of a 'pharmacist consultation' is far outweighed by the protective benefits.

HorsesNHarleys

I can't even remember when you could even get a drug with codeine in it without a prescription here in the US, had to have been decades ago, but I can tell you it's absolute hell if you're suffering in pain and need something stronger than ibuprofen or aspirin. When you go to a doctor and tell them your in terrible pain, if you haven't been seeing that doctor for a long, long time, they think your a drug addict looking for drugs. If you have a chronic pain condition that requires the regular use of pain medication just to have some resemblance of "normal" life where you can function without being doubled over in pain, you're treated like a criminal. All of your medications are tracked in a database and monitored by the Federal Government's Drug Enforcement Agency.

I've read where many folks here talk about the addictiveness of pain medications and how it's reckless to sell these medications without controlling them, it's the same in the U.S. But, both alcohol and cigarettes are addicting and can be fatal, however is a prescription from your doctor needed for either of those items. Listened to a guy in a bar lecturing his buddy about how unhealthy taking pain medication for his back problems was and how it was addicting for him and telling him he should try to tough it out, all the while he was gulping down his drinks and sucking on his cigarettes, what a hypocrite!!!:rolleyes:

Furthermore, it should be recognized and understood that anytime you restrict access to a product (i.e. alcohol or drug) it tends to create a black market for that item and thereby subsequently creates more crime as a result. Prime example was during prohibition in the U.S. Prohibition may have successfully reduced the amount of liquor consumed but it tended to destroy society by other means, as it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized, and widespread criminal activity.

Is there a huge problem in Ireland with people abusing these particular drugs? Or is this something that they just decided maybe we should start regulating? There's always going to be folks who misuse or abuse something, but you shouldn't make laws or policies based on those people and punish the majority of law abiding people in the process.

A glass of water for menstrual cramps, ARE YOU SERIOUS??? :rolleyes:

THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

For your own safety, DO NOT stand within arms reach of a woman suffering serious menstrual cramps and offer her a glass of water as a cure or thinking it will help in any way, you will end up either very wet or seriously injured!!:D:D:D:D

drkpower

HorsesNHarleys wrote: »

Furthermore, it should be recognized and understood that anytime you restrict access to a product (i.e. alcohol or drug) it tends to create a black market for that item and thereby subsequently creates more crime as a result. Prime example was during prohibition in the U.S. Prohibition may have successfully reduced the amount of liquor consumed but it tended to destroy society by other means, as it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized, and widespread criminal activity.

Is there much of a black market for antibiotics, or prescription anti-inflammatories?

Jaxxy

drkpower wrote: »

I dont think you understand the nature of addiction.

But, you do realise that the food market is already regulated; and more is on the way. We regulate markets in different ways; just because someone in Tesco doesnt quiz you before you buy a curly-wurly doesnt mean that the food market is regulated and controlled.

Oh I do understand the nature of addiction.

The food market is nowhere near as stringently regulated as any other. I can still eat myself to death with Big Macs and KFC if I so choose. And rightly so.

drkpower wrote: »

Control it but let me make my own decisions. You seem confused.

It isnt about judging. It is about protecting. If we put dangerous substances, or treatments, on the market, we have an obligation to ensure they are not abuised to the detriment of the user. The relative inconvenience to the consumer of a 'pharmacist consultation' is far outweighed by the protective benefits.

No, I am by no means confused.

As I've previously stated the process of purchasing these medications over the counter and the questioning that might ensue isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned. To that extent, it's an element of controlling the substance. The decision of whether or not to take them is still my own.

Jaxxy

HorsesNHarleys wrote: »

Is there a huge problem in Ireland with people abusing these particular drugs? Or is this something that they just decided maybe we should start regulating? There's always going to be folks who misuse or abuse something, but you shouldn't make laws or policies based on those people and punish the majority of law abiding people in the process.

Couldn't agree more. It's just another symptom of the nanny state malarkey we have going on at the moment.

policeman

Timistry wrote: »

Soon you will need a perscription to take a dump

Well in males it stimulates the prostate, which theoretically is linked to sexual pleasure which in turn is linked to opiate receptors, so yes
we may cautioned about taking far too many dumps and over stimulating said receptors/production of.:D

Kurtosis

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

Education is key here, not blanket bans.

...

But making it available only by prescription is extreme in my opinion. I, for one, am capable of making my own decisions about what I put into my body.

Sorry JaxxY, I've taken two sentences from your post out of context, but there has neither been a blanket ban nor a movement of these medicines to prescription only. Very little has actually changed and many of the points of the guidance have the norm in some pharmacies for quite a time, so this move is more to try to standardise such practices across all pharmacies.

drkpower

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

Oh I do understand the nature of addiction.

The food market is nowhere near as stringently regulated as any other. I can still eat myself to death with Big Macs and KFC if I so choose. And rightly so..

Im not sure if you do;).
Yes, you are correct; it isnt as stringently regulated; that is because it isnt as dangerous; just like the way codeine isnt as stringently regulated as morphine; that is because it isnt as dangerous.

See how it works? Increased dangers to personal & public health; increased regulation. Very straightforward.

drkpower

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. It's just another symptom of the nanny state malarkey we have going on at the moment.

Nonsense.

Regulation of dangerous products is a good and proper exercise of state power. In other news today, you may hear that a certain type of hip replacement has been recalled. If there was no 'nanny state', no regulation of medicinal products and devices, that product could continue to be used for years and decades more posing serious risks to individuals. And I suspect that you would be towards the front of the queue asking how was this let happen.

Kurtosis

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

The decision of whether or not to take them is still my own.

Of course it's your decision. Same way it's up to the pharmacist to use their professional judgement in deciding if it is appropriate to supply them to you or not. Just because it's a non-prescription medicine does not make it a free for all.

Jaxxy

penguin88 wrote: »

Sorry JaxxY, I've taken two sentences from your post out of context, but there has neither been a blanket ban nor a movement of these medicines to prescription only. Very little has actually changed and many of the points of the guidance have the norm in some pharmacies for quite a time, so this move is more to try to standardise such practices across all pharmacies.

Oh I know, I was just arguing against certain methods being instigated. Other posters have been saying that making these drugs available on prescription only is a possible step in "protecting" the possibly uninformed masses. I was merely commenting that I think it would be extreme and a little education might be more of a palatable solution for everyone.

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure if you do;).
Yes, you are correct; it isnt as stringently regulated; that is because it isnt as dangerous; just like the way codeine isnt as stringently regulated as morphine; that is because it isnt as dangerous.

See how it works? Increased dangers to personal & public health; increased regulation. Very straightforward.

I'm sure I do .

Anything consumed in large amounts has the potential to be dangerous, bad for your health or life threatening. Morphine is available on prescription, codeine is available without. By your own admission codeine is nowhere near as dangerous as morphine, and yet by your own logic increased regulation for this substance is necessary. Very straightforward indeed.

drkpower wrote: »

Nonsense.

No, my opinion.

drkpower wrote: »

Regulation of dangerous products is a good and proper exercise of state power. In other news today, you may hear that a certain type of hip replacement has been recalled. If there was no 'nanny state', no regulation of medicinal products and devices, that product could continue to be used for years and decades more posing serious risks to individuals. And I suspect that you would be towards the front of the queue asking how was this let happen.

And you can continue to make assumptions about me until the cows come home, it's not going to change anything, it doesn't make you any more right or me any more wrong. But carry on by all means, suppliment your argument with thinly veiled insults, assumptions and patronization all you want.

Jaxxy

penguin88 wrote: »

Of course it's your decision. Same way it's up to the pharmacist to use their professional judgement in deciding if it is appropriate to supply them to you or not. Just because it's a non-prescription medicine does not make it a free for all.

You make a good point, one similar to a point I made a few pages back. I have no issue with the new regulations, only certain attitudes toward those who take painkillers when they deem it necessary. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore though because this has been going around in circles for a while as far as I'm concerned.

I'm off to pollute my body with an addictive substance of another kind, have a good weekend drkpower!

policeman

drkpower wrote: »

Nonsense.

Regulation of dangerous products is a good and proper exercise of state power.

State power..regulation of dangerous substances..you gotta be sh*tting me..??

Why weren't cigs banned years ago? - They make too much money

People killin' themselves with drink - Too much money involved

New dangerous obesity epidemic caused by sh*t foods killing people - Too much money

drkpower

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

Morphine is available on prescription, codeine is available without. By your own admission codeine is nowhere near as dangerous as morphine, and yet by your own logic increased regulation for this substance is necessary. Very straightforward indeed.

Do you understand this at all? Codeine's level of regulation is not now anywhere near the same level as morphine.
Morphine requires more regulation than codeine; that is clear. Codeine requires more regulation than aspirin; that is clear. Up until now, codeine has had the same level of regulation as ibuprofen. The PSI have made the welcome decision to increase the level of regulation with regard to codeine; it was a long overdue decision.

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

No, my opinion.
And you can continue to make assumptions about me until the cows come home, it's not going to change anything, it doesn't make you any more right or me any more wrong. But carry on by all means, suppliment your argument with thinly veiled insults, assumptions and patronization all you want.

Yes; and you opinion is nonsense. Very straightforward.
Well rather than me making assumptions then, do you think it is right that the IMB are entitled to regulate and recall when necessary the hip replacement device that was recalled today? Or should it still be on the market and should the consumer be entitled to purchase that hip replacement if they want? After all, you did say it should be up to you what you put in your own body, right?

Timistry

bleg wrote: »

Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You will be simply warned that you shouldn't take more than 5 dumps a day.

policeman wrote: »

Well in males it stimulates the prostate, which theoretically is linked to sexual pleasure which in turn is linked to opiate receptors, so yes
we may cautioned about taking far too many dumps and over stimulating said receptors/production of.:D

Umm interesting. Note to self. Vastly increase fibre intake

Dudess

Don't get me wrong - I find it quite a worrying development that our access to something which is quite the necessity as a last resort is being clamped down upon, and I rarely take pain-killers.
I'm lucky enough not to be so afflicted, but when I think of the agonising misery two of my close friends go through every month; a tooth or ear abscess - I've had both - the pain is just... well if someone offered to amputate them for a not very small fee, I'd have jumped at the chance.

Plus, I'm allergic to paracetamol so I'm limited to codeine/ibuprofen.

However, giving pharmacy workers abuse - just think before you resort to bullying you know? It was not brought in by them, they are not providing bad customer service, they are doing their job - not liking it is not justification for getting sh1tty with them.

drkpower

policeman wrote: »

State power..regulation of dangerous substances..you gotta be sh*tting me..??

Why weren't cigs banned years ago? - They make too much money

People killin' themselves with drink - Too much money involved

New dangerous obesity epidemic caused by sh*t foods killing people - Too much money

No. Im dead serious.

Of course cigarettes shouldnt be bannned; nor should alcohol; or codeine; or cannabis; or heroin, as far as i am concerned. They should all be regulated by the State - in different ways, depending on the circumstances and the way they are used. Cigarettes & alcohol are, and have been, regulated for years.

ch750536

alwaysadub wrote: »

You can't get gripe water anymore??

Looked into this a while back. The companies that make it were given 2 years to submit proof that it does what it claims to do. The 2 years passed and there was no evidence of any positive effect submitted so they were forced to remove from the market.

They could introduce it again as 'nice water' without any claims whatsoever.

Also consider that if they found any negative effects in their study then they would have to submit this by law. Therefore many companies choose not to invest on what their products actually do as it can become financially painful.

dan719

This ban doesn't really effect me as I have only ever taken nurofen plus three times in my life. Each time was for a toothache and tbh it did feck all anyway. Never experienced anything like it, and the last time I would quite happily have knocked out every tooth in my head if it had stopped the pain.

Living with a pharmacy student who is currently on placement, it seems that there is a huge issue with codeine addiciton in this country. IMHO, it should be treated in a similar manner to cigarettes. Maybe have a standardised leaflet or warning on the front of the packet. (I've never ever read the leaflets inside medication) Perhaps people on the desk could identify at risk patients and bring them to the pharmacists attention? It seems an awfully inefficient use of a pharmacist's time really. (As an aside, as much as I enjoy calling them glorified shopkeepers, they do fufill an important function as a check and balance on doctors prescriptions as well as being necessary in an advisory capacity.)

RATM

drkpower wrote: »

Nonsense.

Regulation of dangerous products is a good and proper exercise of state power. In other news today, you may hear that a certain type of hip replacement has been recalled. If there was no 'nanny state', no regulation of medicinal products and devices, that product could continue to be used for years and decades more posing serious risks to individuals. And I suspect that you would be towards the front of the queue asking how was this let happen.

In fairness that statement is nonsense- simply because you have missed a key distinction. Your analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny whatsoever.

If someone self medicates then in doing so they take personal responsibility for their actions. If I die taking codine based products then I've no-one to blame but myself- I can't blame the pharmacist because it wasn't them who shoved them down my throat. To claim otherwise would be absurd.

Whereas if I as an individual have a hip replacement that turns out to be faulty then I don't have personal responsibility-the consumer laws protect from faulty goods, called 'not fit for purpose'.
Therefore the responsibility lies with the person or company who made the product, not with the individual.

Governments simply can't regulate what goes on behind closed doors, thats been known for thousands of years. There's already been an article in the IT revealing how codine addicts already know the answers to the pharmacists questions and are doing the rounds to get multiple packets. This alone proves beyond a shawdow of a doubt that these new rules dont work and can't work

sesna

ch750536 wrote: »

Looked into this a while back. The companies that make it were given 2 years to submit proof that it does what it claims to do. The 2 years passed and there was no evidence of any positive effect submitted so they were forced to remove from the market.

They could introduce it again as 'nice water' without any claims whatsoever.

Also consider that if they found any negative effects in their study then they would have to submit this by law. Therefore many companies choose not to invest on what their products actually do as it can become financially painful.

Has you ever heard of homeopathy?

RATM

dan719 wrote: »

Living with a pharmacy student who is currently on placement, it seems that there is a huge issue with codeine addiciton in this country.

There hasn't been one single academic peer reviewed article on codine addiction in Ireland.
It seems that the PSI, an organisation based on the principles of medical science are now turning their back on medical science and basing their decisions on heresy and anecdote.

IMHO, it should be treated in a similar manner to cigarettes. Maybe have a standardised leaflet or warning on the front of the packet.

Agree with you there for sure. Let the individual decide. It's called freedom of choice.

drkpower

RATM wrote: »

In fairness that statement is nonsense- simply because you have missed a key distinction. Your analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny whatsoever.

If someone self medicates then in doing so they take personal responsibility for their actions. If I die taking codine based products then I've no-one to blame but myself- I can't blame the pharmacist because it wasn't them who shoved them down my throat. To claim otherwise would be absurd.

Whereas if I as an individual have a hip replacement that turns out to be faulty then I don't have personal responsibility-the consumer laws protect from faulty goods, called 'not fit for purpose'.

Thats not strictly true. The product isnt actually 'faulty' in this case. It appears that it doesnt give the expected number of years of use (ie. you need a repeat hip replacement after 5 years instead of 15). It probably wouldnt fall foul of consumer protectin laws. So without the powers of regulation of the State, there would be nothing to force the removal of the product from the market.

But my analogy (insofar as i made any) is that those who complain about the powers of the nanny state are picking and choosing where they want the State to protect us.

Owwmykneecap

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure if you do;).
Yes, you are correct; it isnt as stringently regulated; that is because it isnt as dangerous; just like the way codeine isnt as stringently regulated as morphine; that is because it isnt as dangerous.

See how it works? Increased dangers to personal & public health; increased regulation. Very straightforward.

except cigs and alcohol amirite.