Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
29-08-2010, 16:16   #736
drkpower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by sesna View Post
I dont want to get over-technical but you are blatantly mixing up the regulations with the PSI's interpretation of them which are guidelines. Once again, there has not been any change in legislation pertaining to supply of codeine products. Saying breach of codeine "guidelines" is a breach of regulation is your opinion merely.

The guidelines are merely the PSI's interpretation of the law. The PSI's guidelines do not supercede regulation. How can it be that a pharmacy which supplied codeine last month without question would be suddenly in breach of regulations, despite the fact there has been no change whatsoever to any regulation. Hence why I said in my opinion a court would dko nothing about a supposed breach of these vague and useless "guidelines".
Nope; the PSI is statutorily created and obliged and entitled to issue guidelines on what the practical application of the Regulations are; ie. they tell the profession what the Regulations mean. And they have done so. The Codeine regulations elaborate on and explain the meaning of Regulation 10 of the 2008 Regulations. Breaching their guidelines, for the purposes of the law, is akin to breaching the Regulation itself, unless a court finds that the terms of the Guidelines are excessive or unreasonable having regard to the terms of the Regulation.

This is a very straightforward area of regulatory law. Similarly, for instance, the IMB is entitled to produce Guidelines pursuant to medicinal products legislation (ie. mandating what a wholesalers of medicines must do; ie. store medicine in such and such conditions). They expand on the Regulations. Breaching an IMB Guideline IS a breach of the Regulation under which the Guideline was created.

So I am afraid that your 'view' that a court would do nothing about a supposed breach of these "guidelines" is simply legally and factually incorrect.
drkpower is offline  
Advertisement
29-08-2010, 18:05   #737
sesna
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by drkpower View Post
Nope; the PSI is statutorily created and obliged and entitled to issue guidelines on what the practical application of the Regulations are; ie. they tell the profession what the Regulations mean. And they have done so. The Codeine regulations elaborate on and explain the meaning of Regulation 10 of the 2008 Regulations. Breaching their guidelines, for the purposes of the law, is akin to breaching the Regulation itself, unless a court finds that the terms of the Guidelines are excessive or unreasonable having regard to the terms of the Regulation.

This is a very straightforward area of regulatory law. Similarly, for instance, the IMB is entitled to produce Guidelines pursuant to medicinal products legislation (ie. mandating what a wholesalers of medicines must do; ie. store medicine in such and such conditions). They expand on the Regulations. Breaching an IMB Guideline IS a breach of the Regulation under which the Guideline was created.

So I am afraid that your 'view' that a court would do nothing about a supposed breach of these "guidelines" is simply legally and factually incorrect.
The "guidelines" are merely the PSI's interpretation of the law. Court's tend to deal with precedent or what is actually written down in law.

There has never been any court cases for breach of the guidelines. Nowhere on the statute books does it mention that it's illegal sell someone solpadeine, or any codeine product, without first offering paracetamol or some other non-codeine containing painkiller. I sincerely doubt an independent judge would give much credance to such a case either.

its very easy to be compliant with regulation 10 the 2008 regulations whilst at the same time breaching the PSI's guidelines.

I'm afraid your legal and "factual" assertions are actually just opinion.

Last edited by sesna; 29-08-2010 at 18:33.
sesna is offline  
Thanks from:
30-08-2010, 08:35   #738
ebixa82
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by HavingCrack View Post
However it has been put forward as a theory that pharmaceutical companies put far less funding into HIV AIDS research as against other infections and viruses because of its massive prevelance in 3rd World countries which would not give them a profitable enough market. This does actually seem quite likely in my opinion.
Certain companies specialise in HIV/AIDS treatment, while others specialise in more common infections. Not every drug company is responsible in trying to cure a drug for every possible disease state.
Also, do you think that HIV/AIDS are exclusive to 3rd world countries? If memory serves me right there's more than 150,000 people infected with the virus in Italy, a figures simliar in France and Spain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HavingCrack View Post
You've taken completely what I said completely out of context of its original post which referred to you saying a 'normal' (non medical person) would never have access to medical journals which is just not true. What medical facts are you talking about? If there has been countless studies done into the affects of codine research done in Ireland could you please provide some references to the appropriate peer reviewed articles?? This shouldn't prove difficult for someone as well connected as yourself.....
Members of the IPU receive monthly magazines containing articles about the prevalence of codeine addiction in the community and the measures required to overcome this. By all means, get enough points to get into pharmacy, complete the course and become a member of the IPU.
An easier method of obtaining some information on the regualtions etc. you might like to read has been given in above posts by drkpower and sesna.

Hope that helps.

Last edited by ebixa82; 30-08-2010 at 08:38.
ebixa82 is offline  
30-08-2010, 10:15   #739
drkpower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by sesna View Post
The "guidelines" are merely the PSI's interpretation of the law. Court's tend to deal with precedent or what is actually written down in law.

There has never been any court cases for breach of the guidelines. Nowhere on the statute books does it mention that it's illegal sell someone solpadeine, or any codeine product, without first offering paracetamol or some other non-codeine containing painkiller. I sincerely doubt an independent judge would give much credance to such a case either.

its very easy to be compliant with regulation 10 the 2008 regulations whilst at the same time breaching the PSI's guidelines.

I'm afraid your legal and "factual" assertions are actually just opinion.
There has never been a court case for breach of the Regulations either.

I'm not sure what bit of this you arent getting. Perhaps its my fault for not explaining clearly enough:

First up, the PSI are expressly entitled to sanction pharmacists for breaching their own Guidleines and that can include suspension of their registration. That procedure is subject to the conformation of the High Court in precisely the same way that doctors are struck off their Register. So, breaching a PSI Guideline can have significant consequences for a pharmacist, under that mechanism.

Secondly, the Guidelines are not law, you are correct there. However they are made by a statutory body (the PSI) who has the authority and obligation under the law to make them and who are obliged to supervise compliance with the Act. The Codeine Regulations are made for the purpose of elaborating on the meaning of the 2008 Regulations. A breach of a Guideline is therefore, in effect, a breach of the Regulation (insofar as the meaning of that Regulation is understood by the PSI). Of course, a court is not obliged to agree with the PSI's interpretation, but given their role and express statutory function, it is incredibly unlikely that a court would disagree with the PSI's viiew unless it was an entirely unreasonable view to take.

As an analogy, the IMB has enacted guidelines on the wholesaling of medicinal products. They are not law. The Guidelines say that you cant store persihable medicines at less than X degrees celsius. Nowhere in the Medicine Wholesaling law is it stated to be an offence to store medicines at less than X degrees celsius. However it IS an offence to do so unless the court believes that it was unreasonable for the IMB to make those Guidelines.

I hope you understand it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sesna View Post
I'm afraid your legal and "factual" assertions are actually just opinion.
Lol
Eh no, its not; this stuff is not new. Regulatory law applies to many other fields and many other bodies. The law is essentially the same across all of these fields. It is very straightforward. You may be new to it but I'm not.
drkpower is offline  
30-08-2010, 11:51   #740
Dravokivich
Registered User
 
Dravokivich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: redistributing earthly posessions
Posts: 13,761
My main problem with this is, I don't buy pain killers when I need them, I buy them for when I'm going to need them...

I use Solphadine as it's a brand I'd been brought up with as a kid and they worked for me when I've needed them.
Dravokivich is offline  
Advertisement
30-08-2010, 12:10   #741
ebixa82
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dravokivich View Post
My main problem with this is, I don't buy pain killers when I need them, I buy them for when I'm going to need them...

I use Solphadine as it's a brand I'd been brought up with as a kid and they worked for me when I've needed them.
Again this is another action which these new regulations hope to stomp out.

If you were "brought up" with such a brand then it's an error on the part of whoever brought you up I'm afraid.

If you have dental pain for example and you have only Solpadeine in your house you will most likely use this drug to ease the pain. However dental pain is usually caused by inflammation, in which case Nurofen should be the first line treatment. Not Solpadeine. i.e. you are misusing Solpadeine.

It is this misuse of such codeine based meds that can lead to addiction down the line and is precisely what the regulations have been implemented for.
ebixa82 is offline  
30-08-2010, 12:29   #742
username123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebixa82 View Post
If you have dental pain for example and you have only Solpadeine in your house you will most likely use this drug to ease the pain. However dental pain is usually caused by inflammation, in which case Nurofen should be the first line treatment. Not Solpadeine. i.e. you are misusing Solpadeine.
Im sorry but if you read the patient information leaflet available with Solpadeine it clearly states:

Solpadeine Tablets provide effective relief from pain, including:
  • Headache
  • Toothache
  • Period pain
  • Rheumatic pain
  • Backache
  • Neuralgia
  • Relief of cold and 'flu symptoms
Now I dont have a medical degree, and neither do most of the population, but if the medicine says it provides relief from toothache then I dont analyse whether or not that toothache is classed as 'dental pain caused by inflammation' - all I know is Ive a toothache and Solpadeine says it works for toothaches.
username123 is offline  
Thanks from:
30-08-2010, 12:33   #743
Stark
Registered User
 
Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,360
Send a message via AIM to Stark
I find most medicines stop just about short of "effective in the treatment of world hunger" on the packet. It's better to ask a medical professional than rely on what the manufacturer claims. Ibuprofen and aspirin are better than paracetamol for treating pain due to inflammation.

Though if you were "brought up" with solpadeine, then it's likely that the placebo effect is very strong for you.
Stark is offline  
Thanks from:
30-08-2010, 12:43   #744
ArmaniJeanss
Registered User
 
ArmaniJeanss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Looking for an important part of my brain somewher
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stark View Post
Plenty of medicines promise the world on the packet. Ibuprofen and aspirin are better than paracetamol for treating pain due to inflammation.

Though if you were "brought up" with solpadeine, then it's likely that the placebo effect is very strong for you.
Why hasn't the PSI investigated this advertising/labelling?

Last Wednesday a pharmacist told me that 'Solpadeine is not for headaches'.
Now clearly GSK advertise it on TV, print media and on the packaging itself as being for headaches. GSK is deliberately misleading us (or the pharmacist is lying).
ArmaniJeanss is online now  
Advertisement
30-08-2010, 12:56   #745
ebixa82
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by username123 View Post
Im sorry but if you read the patient information leaflet available with Solpadeine it clearly states:

Solpadeine Tablets provide effective relief from pain, including:
  • Headache
  • Toothache
  • Period pain
  • Rheumatic pain
  • Backache
  • Neuralgia
  • Relief of cold and 'flu symptoms
Now I dont have a medical degree, and neither do most of the population, but if the medicine says it provides relief from toothache then I dont analyse whether or not that toothache is classed as 'dental pain caused by inflammation' - all I know is Ive a toothache and Solpadeine says it works for toothaches.
Fair enough but it's not the first line treatment for dental pain. If you go for a dental procedure which may result in pain then 95-100% of Dentists will prescribe either Ibuprofen, Mefenamic Acid (Ponstan) and in severe cases Diclofenac (Difene/Voltarol.
All these drugs belong to the same family of drugs (Non Steroidal Anit-Inflammatories) and none contain codeine.

It is for this reason why people should ask their Pharmacist what is the best drug of choice for their particular complaint.
Paracetamol/Codeine (Solpadeine) are analgesics, they may provide relief for a short period but will do little for the underlying inflammation. Once the Solpadeine wears off the inflammation is still there and wat happens next? More solpadeine taken of course!

Last edited by ebixa82; 30-08-2010 at 12:59.
ebixa82 is offline  
30-08-2010, 13:00   #746
MarkGrisham
Registered User
 
MarkGrisham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 65
So basically the public is ignorant of what these drugs do and most pharmacists can't be bothered to tell them otherwise. Bad situation! People need to wise up and ask questions about what they're putting into themselves. This lad absolutely lays into people using the stuff. He's pretty harsh but has a point about people overusing pills for headaches.

Last edited by MarkGrisham; 30-08-2010 at 13:02.
MarkGrisham is offline  
30-08-2010, 13:01   #747
Dravokivich
Registered User
 
Dravokivich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: redistributing earthly posessions
Posts: 13,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebixa82 View Post
Again this is another action which these new regulations hope to stomp out.

If you were "brought up" with such a brand then it's an error on the part of whoever brought you up I'm afraid.

If you have dental pain for example and you have only Solpadeine in your house you will most likely use this drug to ease the pain. However dental pain is usually caused by inflammation, in which case Nurofen should be the first line treatment. Not Solpadeine. i.e. you are misusing Solpadeine.

It is this misuse of such codeine based meds that can lead to addiction down the line and is precisely what the regulations have been implemented for.
Ahem... my parents can't teach me to use something responsibly? I didn't get it for everything...

I've had absyss's before... they are easy to spot as they stick out from the jawline along the side of your face.

There's a big difference between some pain and a buildup of pressure trying to bulge outwards. From your response... I doubt you've felt the difference...

I'd have to be constantly popping them to get addicted... It's not that often that I would use them... and when I last used'em.. I think I only needed 2 doses of it... but that was quite a while ago and can't remember what for now...
Dravokivich is offline  
30-08-2010, 13:03   #748
ebixa82
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmaniJeanss View Post
Why hasn't the PSI investigated this advertising/labelling?

Last Wednesday a pharmacist told me that 'Solpadeine is not for headaches'.
Now clearly GSK advertise it on TV, print media and on the packaging itself as being for headaches. GSK is deliberately misleading us (or the pharmacist is lying).
Solpadeine can of course be used for headaches. But it is not first line treatment. First line treatment is Paracetamol/Panadol. If this does not work then Solpadeine could be used for a 3 day course. If headaches are still then recurring then you should go to your Doctor to see what is the cause of these recurring headaches instead of continuing to use a potentially addictive drug..
ebixa82 is offline  
30-08-2010, 13:09   #749
ebixa82
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGrisham View Post
So basically the public is ignorant of what these drugs do and most pharmacists can't be bothered to tell them otherwise. Bad situation! People need to wise up and ask questions about what they're putting into themselves. This lad absolutely lays into people using the stuff. He's pretty harsh but has a point about people overusing pills for headaches.
That was a good link there. If only that article could be hung on the wall of every pharmacy in the country!

BTW, when you say most pharmacists can't be bothered to tell them otherwise etc.....well since August 1st they are and that is the reason why this thread is into it's 50th page..

You see all the drug abusers, mis-users, nanny state haters etc etc on this form seem to not like being told about the dangers of these drugs!!
ebixa82 is offline  
Thanks from:
30-08-2010, 13:17   #750
ebixa82
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dravokivich View Post
Ahem... my parents can't teach me to use something responsibly? I didn't get it for everything...

I've had absyss's before... they are easy to spot as they stick out from the jawline along the side of your face.

There's a big difference between some pain and a buildup of pressure trying to bulge outwards. From your response... I doubt you've felt the difference...

I'd have to be constantly popping them to get addicted... It's not that often that I would use them... and when I last used'em.. I think I only needed 2 doses of it... but that was quite a while ago and can't remember what for now...
If you really had a dental abscess you would need a course of antibiotics to clear it in the vast majority of cases..
ebixa82 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet