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

thebaz · 16-10-2010 07:58PM

Codeine is legal in many countries - not sure why the new directive was brought in - cigarettes are still legal in Ireland, coffee , alcohol , head shop concoctions, you can buy all kind of things on the internet - if you take anything to excess - alcohol, coffee , codeine it will cause problems - Why pick on codeine ? lets ban nicotine too

Kurtosis · 16-10-2010 08:10PM

thebaz wrote: »

Codeine is legal in many countries - not sure why the new directive was brought in - cigarettes are still legal in Ireland, coffee , alcohol , head shop concoctions, you can buy all kind of things on the internet - if you take anything to excess - alcohol, coffee , codeine it will cause problems - Why pick on codeine ? lets ban nicotine too

That's the thing, codeine does not have to be taken to excess to cause problems. Using these products at the max dose for a week for a bad cold/flu could give rebound headaches when you stop taking them, while someone could take a couple every morning on an on-going basis just to wake them up and could develop dependence. Such cases of misuse aren't very extreme, but could result in problems for someone who may think they are using a medicine normally.

bleg · 16-10-2010 08:13PM

thebaz wrote: »

Codeine is legal in many countries - not sure why the new directive was brought in - cigarettes are still legal in Ireland, coffee , alcohol , head shop concoctions, you can buy all kind of things on the internet - if you take anything to excess - alcohol, coffee , codeine it will cause problems - Why pick on codeine ? lets ban nicotine too

It has been explained why in the last 62 pages.

DublinWriter · 16-10-2010 08:39PM

KilaWhale wrote: »

I am not an emotional person but I felt like welling up as she looked at me with obvious disdain.

Well then, how do you think the average member of the public feels upon been asked the most intimate of questions about their health in the middle of your shop?

michael2121 · 17-10-2010 12:42AM

To agree to disagree i believe yes there should be either an informative ad campaign or some form of leaflet to tell people of the risks like health warnings on cigarettes. but anything past that is excessive.

Yes some steps to educate and help those who have taken it too much are needed and

No we are not so stupid that we have to be interrogated and pushed to pick another product because some people misuse it. That is all I am going to say on the matter as I have pitched my suggestions for some reform of the situation and give many examples of far worse scenarios both here and abroad so its up to you to decide.

Why let the minority ruin something perfectly fine if taken correctly, for he majority ? there are idiots everywhere because people drink and drive both cars and alcohol should be harder to access. smoking kills it should technically be impossible to access in that case, how about household items such as knifes, or electricity they all cause deaths so they need to be made more difficult to access so we do not hurt ourselves or others. Yes we are informed about the dangers of all of the above so why not be informed about codeine products and move on ?

policeman · 17-10-2010 07:25AM

[yawn]

To conclude google pharmacies/product of your choice - using google.co.uk.

In fact buy all your stuff, vitamins, toiletries. It's much cheaper.

God bless the interweb.

kwalshe · 17-10-2010 08:05AM

I am happy with the new regulations. I would have been using a 12 pack of Solph. approx every 2 days on occasion other times not so much.
I have not bought a pack since the regulations have come in, and therefore I believe the new regulation has benefitted me.
I don't feel the need to hide the empty boxes , buy packs from different pharmacies, or have 2 for breakfast whether I had a pain or not any more.
This thread is stuck on a big roundabout of argument and counter argument and is looking tired.
The only thing this thread needs is to give advice and help to people who take too much (whether they are in denial or not!) to stop or seriously cut down.

thebaz · 17-10-2010 09:12AM

bleg wrote: »

It has been explained why in the last 62 pages.

your obviously not very happy, put it this way, is at any worse than nicotine - which is still legal - head shops were selling all kinds of toxic combinations that caused a lot more serious problems, up until recently - glue for example would cause more damage if abused , and thats available in any hardware store -

Codeine is not crack cocaine , doesnt need to be policed like a nanny state, or one that also legally sells cigarettes too

KilaWhale · 17-10-2010 05:41PM

username123 wrote: »

You must be very over sensitive if a random member of the public being smart makes you well up.

If you genuinely feel this way - then why the welling up over some random stranger?

I personally think the whole thing is a bit silly. Ive been told the spiel on a few of occasions now, I even got an interrogation over some medicine that doesnt contain codeine last week - going to the chemist has gone from being a fairly ordinary business transaction to what feels like a mildly squirmy spanish inquisition where I come up with more and more creative ways of describing my pain, in public, and feel slightly 'shameful' as though Im trying to buy heroin. The difference in standards is pretty odd too, in one chemist I observed a fairly strenuous question and answer session over solpha-sinus (of all things, dont even contain codeine), and then in another no questioning whatsover and a 24 pack of solphadeine handed over.

My own take on it is this - go to a local chemist that may be struggling more financially than a branch of a large conglomerate. Far more likely the local chemist wont turn down your business.

I felt like welling up as incidents like the one described have been occurring for the past few weeks now and I had had enough. I am sure many people have felt a lump in their throat in uncomfortable or demeaning situation.

Do you understand why a pharmacist might have been asking you questions in relation to the Solpa-Sinus?

username123 · 17-10-2010 07:08PM

KilaWhale wrote: »

I felt like welling up as incidents like the one described have been occurring for the past few weeks now and I had had enough. I am sure many people have felt a lump in their throat in uncomfortable or demeaning situation.

I do understand the lump in the throat feeling, but why youd get it because some random cheeky bint was smart is beyond me - ultimately you have the power you know - you can refuse her the drug!!
But dont you think that members of the public dont like being asked personal questions about their illnesses/conditions/pain in public by a stranger when all they want is a couple of tablets to clear a headache or backache etc... Its a totally different ball game to discuss ones body in a private room with your trusted GP - but in a public pharmacy - its not cool. It makes people annoyed. it makes people feel like they are trying to do something wrong when all they want is their headache gone so they can get on with the day.

KilaWhale wrote: »

Do you understand why a pharmacist might have been asking you questions in relation to the Solpa-Sinus?

Yes I do and without getting into a discussion about my own personal medical issues (which btw I dislike having to do in a public pharmacy) I have a particular medical condition that is mostly under control with prescription drops but when there is a flare up the treatment (ENT consultant recommended) is a couple of Solpha-Sinus. Not a whole pack of them, and not for more than a day or two, but thats what I paid 180 euro to an ENT guy to be recommended, and I somehow suspect he is more an expert in the area than the young girl behind the counter (who isnt a pharmacist) in the chemist where I received the interrogation.

And even asking me do I understand why I might have been asked questions (it wasnt a pharmacist who asked me either) indicates to me that pharmacists think that the general public are big eejits who just ask for random medication!!!

bleg · 17-10-2010 07:16PM

Pharmacies are now required to have a consultancy room. You no longer have to discuss confidential information in the shop.

corkcomp · 17-10-2010 07:18PM

I didnt read through all this thread, but I've had to buy neurofen plus twice since the new laws were passed - the first time (muscle injury) I had to fill out a questionaire, wait 20 minutes only to be told where to go basically - the other time was last week (wisdom tooth pain) and I wasnt even asked why I needed them - just handed out as before so it looks like its dependant on the pharmacy tbh

username123 · 17-10-2010 07:22PM

bleg wrote: »

Pharmacies are now required to have a consultancy room. You no longer have to discuss confidential information in the shop.

They do not all have consultancy rooms yet and in fact the pharmacy where I received the solpha-sinus interrogation had a desk/chair set up with a screen around it (not private at all) but i was questioned loudly at the counter and not by the pharmacist so the screened off public desk and chair was irrelevant anyway.

KilaWhale · 17-10-2010 10:32PM

username123 wrote: »

And even asking me do I understand why I might have been asked questions (it wasnt a pharmacist who asked me either) indicates to me that pharmacists think that the general public are big eejits who just ask for random medication!!!

Apologies if I was insinuating this username. When I ask questions in the pharmacy setting, it is not a case of implying that the general public are stupid eejits for not always understanding how every drug works (be it OTC or prescription only). It is my intention to advise about the common misuse of medicines such as Solpa-Sinus. It is what I have been educated in and hence feel confident in giving advice. I do not assume another health professional/service provider/expert in a given field would view me as a 'big eejit' if they were giving me advice in their area of specialty.

I fully empathise with the public with regards the privacy issue in pharmacies. I have strived to make each consultation as private as possible and hope that the consultancy room guidance will deal with this problem to some degree. You have every right to ask the pharmacist to lower their voice if they are publicising your condition.

I hope this is not coming across as a personal attack as people have varying levels of understanding of their own medical history and each case is therefore different. (What I would suggest though is that if you are requesting Solpa-Sinus again, just mention straight away that an ENT consultant has advised it and that you are aware how to use it properly - this is the information that the the OTC assistant or pharmacist requires or wants - that you can use the medicine safely and correctly. )

DublinWriter · 18-10-2010 12:14PM

KilaWhale wrote: »

Do you understand why a pharmacist might have been asking you questions in relation to the Solpa-Sinus?

Frankly no.

It doesn't contain codeine and isn't covered by the IPS guidelines.

If the guidelines are being interpreted in such a catch-all and arbitrary way then you might as well extend the 20-questions routine to products such as Vitamin-C and Andrews Liver Salts.

KilaWhale · 18-10-2010 02:27PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

Frankly no.

It doesn't contain codeine and isn't covered by the IPS guidelines.

If the guidelines are being interpreted in such a catch-all and arbitrary way then you might as well extend the 20-questions routine to products such as Vitamin-C and Andrews Liver Salts.

Pseudoephedrine is one of the active ingredients in Solpa-Sinus - it is contraindicated in many disease states including high blood pressure, thyroid dysfunction, conditions of the prostate and renal impairment as it can cause tachycardia, stimulation etc. The pharmacist asks you questions to ascertain whether this medicine is suitable for you as an individual due to the high prevalence of these disease states in the population. It is for the patient's own benefit that the pharmacist assesses its appropriateness, not in order to abide by PSI guidelines.

Vitamin C and Andrews Liver Salts do not require this degree of questioning as they will not impact on most disease states. However, many OTC drugs do hence the questions are important.

The privacy issue has been raised before and it is my hope that private consultation will become the norm in the future.

CJhaughey · 18-10-2010 02:39PM

This is an example of the well meaning but ultimately useless legislation that this country seems to love.
All this will do at the end of the day is to make it difficult or impossible for an average person to obtain what is a largely troublefree painkiller.
Those that are addicted to codeine will just order a few packs from the North or the UK and carry on as before.
32 Solpadeine Max are somewhere around 5-6 stg and are easy to order online.

Cuddlesworth · 18-10-2010 02:42PM

CJhaughey wrote: »

This is an example of the well meaning but ultimately useless legislation that this country seems to love.
All this will do at the end of the day is to make it difficult or impossible for an average person to obtain what is a largely troublefree painkiller.
Those that are addicted to codeine will just order a few packs from the North or the UK and carry on as before.
32 Solpadeine Max are somewhere around 5-6 stg and are easy to order online.

Really? Because I don't take any painkillers and haven't in over 25 years. That should be the average, not dropping some codine at the slightest twinge. Let the addicts order online, if not there I'm sure the local dealer could start supplying.

CJhaughey · 18-10-2010 03:38PM

It's not about you and your high pain tolerance or aversion to pain meds.
It is about the ready access of an individual to pain killing meds that doesn't need a doctors visit.
Here is some news for you people are all different, some handle pain better than others, some handle stress better than others but everyone is different.
I don't much care for painkillers either but I believe that it is definately not right that a person looking for strong OTC pain meds needs to buy online or from some shady dealer because some gimp in a pharmacy decides that they know better.

KilaWhale · 18-10-2010 04:14PM

CJhaughey wrote: »

It's not about you and your high pain tolerance or aversion to pain meds.
It is about the ready access of an individual to pain killing meds that doesn't need a doctors visit.
Here is some news for you people are all different, some handle pain better than others, some handle stress better than others but everyone is different.
I don't much care for painkillers either but I believe that it is definately not right that a person looking for strong OTC pain meds needs to buy online or from some shady dealer because some gimp in a pharmacy decides that they know better.

That gimp may know better.....just a thought

username123 · 18-10-2010 07:27PM

KilaWhale wrote: »

....I hope this is not coming across as a personal attack....

No Kilawhale, not at all.

I suppose what sticks in my craw about the whole thing is getting questioned about OTC medicines. The very definition is ~over the counter~ so surely people can make their own call on it? What Ive found interesting is the difference in attitude between prescribed meds and OTC meds in terms of attitude - when a pharmacist talks to me about my prescribed meds its very blase, a kind of friendly, slightly distant, quick run down of contra indications etc.... But about OTC meds - its almost accusatory, Ive actually been made to feel as though Im doing something wrong to look for a well advertised OTC medication. Perhaps its a perceptional thing, but from what Ive observed and experienced myself, its a bit OTT in some places.

Im starting to wonder if theres a deeper agenda - get people paying their GP exorbitant prices for mere headache medication (or back ache, or period pains, or whatever).

Theres always going to be people with the smug 'ive not taken a pain killer in 20 years' attitude. Thats fine, Im happy for you that youve led such a pain free life, but I havent, so should I suffer simply because youve been lucky? What harm am I doing you if I wish to take something for a muscle strain or a period pain?

Just to add, I live in a country where criminal activity and corruption is the norm for our publically elected officials, the government has driven us deeper and deeper into a recession with no end in sight, my household income is 33% of what it was a year ago with a mortgage that goes up with each interest rate hike on a property that continues to slide further and further into negative equity, my cost of living has not come down, I have had pay cuts, the government have imposed levies and taxes on me to bail out irresponsible bankers, there is a fair chance that the IMF will come in and savage the people of this country, if I were unlucky enough to fall ill and throw myself on the mercy of the public health system I could quite easily die before I got an appointment, and if i did have a surgery I would be lucky not to contract MRSA in the hospital, public transport is a joke, benefits fraud is seen as the 'norm' (and why not when its the big boys defrauding the ordinary people daily), and on top of all this misery - I am now made to feel like a junkie if I look for a couple of tablets because Ive got a bloody headache from the stress!!

Perhaps I should become a junkie - at least Id be prescribed the methadone - and itd be free!!
Rant over.

Kurtosis · 18-10-2010 08:01PM

username123 wrote: »

I suppose what sticks in my craw about the whole thing is getting questioned about OTC medicines. The very definition is ~over the counter~ so surely people can make their own call on it?

Just to clarify, "over the counter" medicines actually consist of two groups of products from a regulatory standpoint.

General/open sale medicines are the most widely available and can be bought from non-pharmacy shops such as supermarkets (as well as usually being available on the floor of a pharmacy).

Pharmacy only/pharmacist-supervised medicines are only available in pharmacies and are kept behind the counter.

Part of the legislation concerning non-prescription medicines sold through pharmacies requires the pharmacist to be satisfied that the person buying is aware of the appropriate use of the medicine, that it is being sought for an appropriate purpose and that it is not intended for misuse/abuse. Due to this requirement, there may be questions involved with any medicine bought in a pharmacy.

username123 · 18-10-2010 08:09PM

penguin88 wrote: »

Part of the legislation concerning non-prescription medicines sold through pharmacies requires the pharmacist to be satisfied that the person buying is aware of the appropriate use of the medicine, that it is being sought for an appropriate purpose and that it is not intended for misuse/abuse. Due to this requirement, there may be questions involved with any medicine bought in a pharmacy.

The appropriate use of the medicine is printed clearly on the back of the branded packaging of these medicines.

Kurtosis · 18-10-2010 08:12PM

username123 wrote: »

The appropriate use of the medicine is printed clearly on the back of the branded packaging of these medicines.

And the other two?

Tigger · 18-10-2010 08:19PM

KilaWhale wrote: »

Pseudoephedrine is one of the active ingredients in Solpa-Sinus - it is contraindicated in many disease states including high blood pressure, thyroid dysfunction, conditions of the prostate and renal impairment as it can cause tachycardia, stimulation etc. The pharmacist asks you questions to ascertain whether this medicine is suitable for you as an individual due to the high prevalence of these disease states in the population. It is for the patient's own benefit that the pharmacist assesses its appropriateness, not in order to abide by PSI guidelines.

Vitamin C and Andrews Liver Salts do not require this degree of questioning as they will not impact on most disease states. However, many OTC drugs do hence the questions are important.

The privacy issue has been raised before and it is my hope that private consultation will become the norm in the future.

is it not because its a product that peeps use to wake up and getr going
bobybuilders and taxi drivers ddo tho sudafed more than solphosinus

from wiki

There have been reports of off-label uses of pseudoephedrine for its stimulant properties. Long-distance truck drivers and sports athletes, for example, have reportedly used pseudoephedrine as a stimulant to increase their state of alertness/awareness.[citation needed]

The similarity in chemical structure to the amphetamines has made pseudoephedrine a sought-after chemical precursor in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine and methcathinone. As a result of the increasing regulatory restrictions on the sale and distribution of pseudoephedrine, many pharmaceutical firms have reformulated, or are in the process of reformulating medications to use alternative, but less effective,[15] decongestants, such as phenylephrine.

Many retailers such as Target, Walgreens, CVS, and Winn-Dixie have created corporate policies restricting the sale of pseudoephedrine-containing products. Their policies restrict sales by limiting purchase quantities and requiring a minimum age with proper identification. These requirements are similar to and sometimes more stringent than existing law. Internationally, pseudoephedrine is listed as a Table I precursor under the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.[16]

mathepac · 18-10-2010 08:37PM

corkcomp wrote: »

I didnt read through all this thread, but I've had to buy neurofen plus twice since the new laws were passed ...

CJhaughey wrote: »

This is an example of the well meaning but ultimately useless legislation ...

There are no new laws, no new legislation has been enacted.

I'll type it again so it gets a chance to sink in "There are no new laws, no new legislation has been enacted."

The thread title is incorrect and misleading, as a number of posters have pointed out already and repeatedly.

username123 · 18-10-2010 08:59PM

penguin88 wrote: »

And the other two?

Ive never bought a medicine that didnt have both the instructions and appropriate use printed on them, or in the case of prescription meds Ive gotten a little leaflet in there OR its printed on the label by the pharmacy.

What medicines are you talking about? Is there an entire class of medicine that has no instructions and no appropriate use directions written on them sold in pharmacies?

Kurtosis · 18-10-2010 09:18PM

I think you've taken me up wrong. I said that it is a legal requirement for a pharmacist "to be satisfied that the person buying is aware of the appropriate use of the medicine, that it is being sought for an appropriate purpose and that it is not intended for misuse/abuse."

You stated that the appropriate use is documented on the product package/information leaflet. I was asking how the pharmacist is meant to be satisfied of the other two requirements of this legislation (that is is being sought for an appropriate purpose and that it is not intended for misuse/abuse) without asking questions.

KilaWhale · 18-10-2010 09:21PM

username123 wrote: »

Ive never bought a medicine that didnt have both the instructions and appropriate use printed on them, or in the case of prescription meds Ive gotten a little leaflet in there OR its printed on the label by the pharmacy.

What medicines are you talking about? Is there an entire class of medicine that has no instructions and no appropriate use directions written on them sold in pharmacies?

I assume that penguin88 is referring to "that it is being sought for an appropriate purpose and that it is not intended for misuse" as the 'other two' that are not provided on the packaging.

Advising patients about medications and OTC sale is a vague area as whilst trying to not offend patients, it is important to make sure they are actually using medications appropriately. It is easy to follow the dosage intervals e.g '2 solpadeine four times daily' as written on the back of the packet; it is more difficult to determine if this dosage is actually the optimal therapy for your individual condition.

The 'misuse' issue is more sensitive as it can involve feelings of accusation and/or interrogation due to poor communication by pharmacy staff. However, if we are to tackle drug misuse in this country, why not start with baby steps such as these? Communication skills are a huge part of the pharmacy course now so hopefully this will help in this regard.

I can clearly see both sides of the argument here with respect to privacy and patient involvement in their medication choices - community pharmacists must respect the patient's right to privacy and patients should respect the pharmacist's right to ask appropriate questions.

What I do not understand is the general feeling from this forum that the general public know as much about medicines as pharmacists. Each person has their speciality of interest and knowledge. Medicines just happens to be mine and hence I want to share this knowledge with patients so that they can take greater care of their health.

We complain about the health service falling to pieces, about professions succumbing to greed - so why do we have the right to criticise someone who is trying to carry out their job correctly?
Sorry about the long post:p

username123 · 18-10-2010 09:22PM

penguin88 wrote: »

You stated that the appropriate use is documented on the product package/information leaflet. I was asking how the pharmacist is meant to be satisfied of the other two requirements of this legislation (that is is being sought for an appropriate purpose and that it is not intended for misuse/abuse) without asking questions.

How is the pharmacist to be satisfied that the person isnt lying through their teeth? Do you think people with an addiction problem will actually state they want the medicine to satisfy a fix, or that they want to extract the active ingredient to make crystal meth?

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

Comments