By addie19 - 19/01/2010 19:25 - United States
Add a comment - Reply to : #
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
I answered this below, but also, if it were totally normal and commonplace, we wouldn't give antibiotics orally and chance that they haven't been completely absorbed by the time the person throws up. If it was totally normal and commonplace, I would see it. It's my job to read anywhere from 20-30 inpatient charts every day M-F. Currently, that is 100% of all inpatients at my current hospital. Also, what person would take a drug that made them throw up normally? Her meds need to be adjusted to something that doesn't react so badly with her. Either way, it's an adverse effect. As in, it's not the intended outcome of taking said drug.
Charlie88: I actually also confirmed with a coworker who has been in the same career for over 20 years. And, beyond my own experience in hospitals and schooling for it, both of my parents are in the medical field and my uncle is a surgeon. Medical is kind of what we do, and what we discuss. Also, it is a requirement of my job to know disease processes and what they entail. I literally could not work if I didn't know that information. And, I have an accuracy rate around 96% with this hospital.
Ok, well, here's a fun medical fact. If even one person has an issue while taking a drug, whether or not it is related to taking that drug, it has to be listed as a possible side effect. Usually when you experience a side effect like that, it means you need to either switch to a different antibiotic, read the directions, or there's something else going on. Most people have a delicate balance of bacteria in their system, and when it's disrupted it can lead to other issues. A lot of people who get diarrhea on antibiotics have C. Diff colitis. It's a more resistent strain of bacteria, and it takes over when the others are killed off. Same reason women get yeast infections. there is a delicate balance of yeast and bacteria in the vagina, and when you kill off the bacteria, the yeast takes over. Either way, she should still talk to her doctor as it is not normal. No side effect is "normal." No reaction should be ignored.
No, you're kinda stupid. They only have to list it as a side effect if it can be reliably linked to the drug, and there does have to be a significant percentage of people who experience the side effect for it to be listed. One person experiencing the effect does not make it required to list. If that was true, then every single drug on the market would have the exact same list of possible side effects.
@34: Actually, let's use the H1N1 vaccination as an example. They listed things like headaches, nausea, and stuffy nose that have absolutely no way of being linked to the vaccination. They are simply things that happened after the vaccination. It could have been a sudden change in temp from one day to the next that resulted in the headache, but because the person reported it, it had to be listed as a possible side effect. No drug company can be 100% sure that an issue, that a person taking their drug is having, isn't related to their drug. How could they?
34, idkweird was right about that one. Unless it's positively known that the side effect wasn't caused by the drug, it is required to be listed on side effects. Even if only ONE person experienced that effect. Which, idkweird, is what I meant by significant (poor word choice on my part the first time around), meaning that it was an effect that could not be ruled out as being caused by the drug.
Oh, but it is!!!!! It also causes the OP to vomit out her words in. short. unnecessary. phrases.
Was it really necessary to split your second sentence up into three?