Who is writing these Cipro scripts, and when are they going to lose their license to practice medicine?
It is bad enough that most GPs will write a script for antibiotics for patients suffering from an obvious cold virus just to make them go away, but given that there is a run on Cipro, any doctor who allows patients to “stock up” is grossly incompetent and should not have a DEA license.
I’ve not yet heard a single news story taking this angle yet, so maybe there is something I’m missing. Why do people think it is ok for doctors to do this? What is the point of controlling a substance like that if doctors will give in to people’s irrational fears?
What is your General Question? This sounds more like a debate or a rant, unless you literally want to know the names and addresses of the MDs responsible.
I’m up in Northern Miramichi. Here, people are not getting anthrax. I have written no Cipro scripts.
If I lived next door to someone who had contacted anthrax, or worked with one, it makes sense to use prophylactic antibiotics.
I agree it seems silly to give cipro to anyone. But of course, patients can put a lot of pressure on doctors to do something they want. If this something is relatively harmless, doctors often cave. What if I didn’t give cipro to the hysterical Mr. X in my office… Would he go to many other doctors until he got it? Would he become a public menace? Would he be so anxious he would tie up busy emergency rooms just to get a prescription, threatening he would hold me legally responsible if he ever contacted anthrax? Would he have a heart attack, lose sleep, become addicted to benzos, buy it on the street…
It’s not so cut and dry if he has a reasonable risk of exposure. The risks of using cipro are there but not huge. I’d need to see more data before concluding the doctor was irresponsible.
Ditto what Doc Pap said. I’m writing some scrips for Cipro, but I’m writing them for situations where Cipro is appropriate, like P. Aeruginosa. I haven’t written any for anthrax yet. I hope I won’t have to. But I refuse to accept a “label” that says I must be incompetent if I prescribe a medication for reasons that you do not agree with, or for failing to fully explain my reasons to you. If you disagree with my treatment plan, you examine the patient, and offer your own plan. IF the patient doesn’t decide to take their anger out on you for interfering with the doctor-patient relationship.
BTW, Cipro is not a controlled substance, and not under the jurisdiction of the DEA.
Bib, old buddy, this seems more appropriate for the pit to me.
Sorry, forgot not everyone is necessarily seeing the same news stories that I am.
There are lots of people hoarding Cipro for the eventuality that there is a massive anthrax attack on the country. These people are being written prescriptions for large quantities of the drug, and they have no symptoms (nor do they believe they have symptoms). They just want it.
Doctors should not write prescriptions to people just because they want them, and those who do are irresponsible.
To try to keep this in GQ, how about this as a question:
Under what circumstances is it a) legal and b) ethical under AMA guidelines to prescribe an antibiotic to a patient whom does not have the disease for which the stuff is prescribed? Does that assessment change if there is likely to be a shortage of the drug?
Well, I am a licensed physician and I have written a few prescriptions for prophylactic Cipro.
I have interviewed and examined the patients for whom these prescriptions were written. I have indicated on the prescription that it is to be taken when needed for infection prophylaxis, and I have told them to call me for further advice if and when they believe such therapy should be started. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
The government says that appropriate antibiotics will be made available in the event of anthrax bioterrorism in a community, and that they have enough supply and will get it to where it’s needed in a timely manner. Maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe some people would rather be proactive and fend for themselves in this crisis. Why should I, or your for that matter, object to that?