![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 30. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
So, there's some evidence that the PDE5 inhibitors (Viagra, etc.) help treat the notorious antidepressant side effect we all know about in women as well as men. We also all know it's perfectly legal to prescribe a drug off-label. So why when I brought in a prescription for one of these drugs did the pharmacist refuse to fill it on the grounds that "that's not for women" ???? (not only that, he wouldn't give me back my script so I could try to fill it at a different pharmacist!)
Has anyone else encountered this problem, and if so, any ideas what I should do about it?
-Crotale
Posted by linkadge on July 5, 2008, at 8:30:42
In reply to sexist pharmacist, posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
Yeah, thats not right. I would go back and tell him how you feel. Tell him that he's not a doctor and is not payed to make executive decisions.
Tell him you are going back to the prescribing doctor to get another prescription and to report him.
You could also urge him to call the prescribing doctor for verification.
Linkadge
Posted by Quintal on July 5, 2008, at 9:02:14
In reply to sexist pharmacist, posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
Viagra is used off label to treat a variety of conditions in both sexes. I read a few months ago about a baby being treated with Viagra for a severe heart condition. It isn't right for the pharmacist to refuse to dispense a prescription on these grounds without making enquiries about your medical history. I think they have an obligation to contact the prescribing doctor for clarification if they have any doubts about the suitability of a medicine. Go back and ask him to contact you doctor for confirmation. If he refuses, ask to speak to the manager of the company and lodge a complaint. Also phone your doctor's office and let him know what has happened. If this pharmacist still refuses to dispense and won't give you the prescription back he will probably write a new one for you. With any luck there will be a different pharmacist on staff when you go back.
Q
Posted by Amigan on July 5, 2008, at 11:09:12
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by Quintal on July 5, 2008, at 9:02:14
Many pharmacists, besides being preaks, they are doctor wannabes. They hate doctors and themselves because they didn't had the opportunity to become one.
They deserve to be reported. Go ahead.
Posted by Merge on July 5, 2008, at 12:20:14
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by Amigan on July 5, 2008, at 11:09:12
It was not only wrong for the pharmacist to refuse to fill your prescription, it was wrong for him not to give you back the (unfilled) prescription! This was SO unprofessional and unethical on so many levels. I agree that that pharmacist should be reported - I don't know where you are, but every state in the US has a board that regulates licensed pharmacists. I would definitely report him.
If it were me, I would tell my doctor what happened, get a new script and go to a different pharmacy. You may even get your doctor to help you report the pharmacist.
Wow, I'm really shocked that a pharmacist would do this and I'm sorry that you have to go through such difficulties, especially when all you're trying to do is get better!
Good luck, and let us know what happens.
Posted by seldomseen on July 5, 2008, at 12:26:24
In reply to sexist pharmacist, posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
i would call your doctor and get a new prescription. Tell him/her what happened and perhaps they will call the pharmacy.
A pharmacist can refuse to fill any prescription he/she views questionable. In fact, they can refuse to fill any prescription. However, I think this case is a little over the top. It is odd that they kept the prescription.
I would also call the owner of the pharmacy and let them know.
Seldom
Posted by Phillipa on July 5, 2008, at 12:53:07
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist » Crotale, posted by seldomseen on July 5, 2008, at 12:26:24
Agree with all posters. It's not giving it back to you that really tic me off. And do call the doc and manager ask about policies, etc. Good luck. Phillipa
Posted by elanor roosevelt on July 5, 2008, at 13:16:19
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by Phillipa on July 5, 2008, at 12:53:07
your pharmacist is a troubled man
and completely out of linehey amigan
what's a "preak"
Posted by Amigan on July 5, 2008, at 13:45:45
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by elanor roosevelt on July 5, 2008, at 13:16:19
> your pharmacist is a troubled man
> and completely out of line
>
> hey amigan
> what's a "preak"It's a mis-spelled prick.
Posted by cumulative on July 5, 2008, at 17:29:19
In reply to sexist pharmacist, posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
agree with all posters
Posted by bleauberry on July 5, 2008, at 19:02:28
In reply to sexist pharmacist, posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
I agree with all posters in their judgement against the pharmacist. Would also like to reiterate viagra has other uses besides male potency. Female potency, heart, blood pressure, and yes, even depression. In a small study the elderly patients taking daily viagra experienced a feeling of well being. They couldn't tell if it was legit or whether it was due to having sex again. Either way, cool. In any case, viagra has multiple uses and it is up to the doctor to decide what to prescribe it for, not the pharmacist. All a pharmacist does is count the pills into a bottle and put a label on it.
The first thing I would do is call the doctor on the phone and request a new prescription be called in to another pharmacy, or have another one written up that you can just stop by and pick it up at the desk. The second thing I would do is ask the doctor how to report a complaint against the pharmacist as well as the pharmacy. I wouldn't know who to call to do that, other than maybe the manager of the store. Whoever that is, I'm sure they would not appreciate that the pharmacist turned away sales and profits against a doctor's wishes. I would also love it if my doctor called that pharmacist personally.
I would also return to the pharmacist and demand the prescription back. They do have the right to refuse a sale to anyone, just as any retailer does, but they do not have the right to steal your written prescription. That is your property that does not belong to anyone else.
Posted by yxibow on July 6, 2008, at 3:19:02
In reply to sexist pharmacist, posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
> So, there's some evidence that the PDE5 inhibitors (Viagra, etc.) help treat the notorious antidepressant side effect we all know about in women as well as men. We also all know it's perfectly legal to prescribe a drug off-label. So why when I brought in a prescription for one of these drugs did the pharmacist refuse to fill it on the grounds that "that's not for women" ???? (not only that, he wouldn't give me back my script so I could try to fill it at a different pharmacist!)
>
> Has anyone else encountered this problem, and if so, any ideas what I should do about it?
>
> -CrotaleIt can be interpreted as sexist, as far as the instant refusal to prescribe it, but pharmacists do, depending on your state, play a a "double check" role in determining if something is going to be deleterious.
The pharmacist should have simply called your doctor if he had any qualms about prescribing it for you.
As for holding the script, that definitely sounds like improper behaviour -- it is not a scheduled substance and is highly unlikely for a female to be forging a prescription (pardon the sexism there I guess).
As noted, just have the doctor give reasons for the off label use -- yes, this does go on for *ss protecting reasons for both the doctor's license and the pharmacy, or use another pharmacy.
-- tidings
Jay
Posted by undopaminergic on July 6, 2008, at 8:08:11
In reply to sexist pharmacist, posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
You could try threatening to report him to the police for theft unless he returns your prescription.
On the other hand, abstinence would seem a better way to have dealt with this antidepressant side effect in the first place.
Posted by Quintal on July 6, 2008, at 8:36:14
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by undopaminergic on July 6, 2008, at 8:08:11
Are you gay?
Q
Posted by linkadge on July 6, 2008, at 12:06:49
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by undopaminergic on July 6, 2008, at 8:08:11
>abstinence would seem a better way to have dealt >with this antidepressant side effect in the >first place.
And I suppose refusal to eat would be a good way to deal with a side effect of 'loss of appetite'?
Linkadge
Posted by undopaminergic on July 6, 2008, at 14:09:47
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by linkadge on July 6, 2008, at 12:06:49
> >abstinence would seem a better way to have dealt >with this antidepressant side effect in the >first place.
>
> And I suppose refusal to eat would be a good way to deal with a side effect of 'loss of appetite'?
>Refusal isn't the right word, but anyway, yes, not eating is indeed a great solution to such a side effect, although it does have its limitations, depending on the supplies of fatty deposits among other things. Not breathing in response to the opioid side effect of respiratory depression is exploitable only to such a limited extent that is of no practical utility, unless suicide is the intent. Sexual abstinence has no such limitations, however, and therein lies a significant difference from the other examples.
Posted by undopaminergic on July 6, 2008, at 14:25:22
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist » undopaminergic, posted by Quintal on July 6, 2008, at 8:36:14
> Are you gay?
>
> QNo, are you? Anyway, if I were, it would be of little practical significance, as I have the good fortune of no longer being plagued by a sex drive.
Posted by Quintal on July 6, 2008, at 14:42:59
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by undopaminergic on July 6, 2008, at 14:25:22
Okay.
Q
Posted by linkadge on July 6, 2008, at 16:22:08
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by undopaminergic on July 6, 2008, at 14:25:22
>No, are you? Anyway, if I were, it would be of >little practical significance, as I have the >good fortune of no longer being plagued by a sex >drive
Well, its not exactly fair to assume that every individual has the same cost/benifit analysis of sex that you do.
Of course one might argue that should it have been such an unpleasant and adversive experience for you, that it may have never, in fact, been fully functional (?).
Linkadge
Posted by GotAMoodSwing on July 6, 2008, at 19:56:25
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist » Crotale, posted by yxibow on July 6, 2008, at 3:19:02
A good place to start is the Department of Health in your state, since they issue the pharmaceutical licenses.
Posted by Deputy Racer on July 7, 2008, at 12:04:32
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by undopaminergic on July 6, 2008, at 8:08:11
Let's keep this thread civil.
At this time, I will not issue any official actions against any particular poster on this thread, but would request that you all familiarize yourselves with the site guidelines, located at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil Any follow ups regarding site guidelines should be addressed to the Administration board, and should themselves be civil.
Any further follow ups to this thread should also follow those guidelines, including sensitivity to others who may not share your views.
Thank you.
Deputy Racer
Posted by atmlady on July 7, 2008, at 12:54:36
In reply to sexist pharmacist, posted by Crotale on July 5, 2008, at 4:57:00
Girlfriend, I hope you get your script and then hope that you'll post as to whether it's effective for you. I am very interested, as the anorgasmia from anything (except my ixel) that re-uptakes serotonin seems to bring on this distressing SE in me. I have a few tablets that I got for free, but haven't been brave enough to try it, and right now don't need it anyway. But god forbid I have to switch over to an SSRI someday, it would be nice to know if there's something out there to help the anorgasmia SE!
Posted by blueboy on July 9, 2008, at 8:05:01
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by linkadge on July 6, 2008, at 12:06:49
> >abstinence would seem a better way to have dealt >with this antidepressant side effect in the >first place.
>
> And I suppose refusal to eat would be a good way to deal with a side effect of 'loss of appetite'?
>That's not a helpful response, IMO. Many people are abstinent from sex, either by choice or by circumstance. I personally made the choice to continue Nardil therapy for two years, even though it practically destroyed my sexual function.
Whereas, abstaining from food is impossible, in practical terms. You have to eat to live. You don't have to have sex to live a full and productive life; it's a matter of individual personality, beliefs, etc. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who would disagree as they cannot conceive of life without sex -- it is a defining part of their persona -- but believe me, there is a larger truth.
Would you rather be Mother Theresa or Paris Hilton? ;)
Posted by linkadge on July 9, 2008, at 21:41:54
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by blueboy on July 9, 2008, at 8:05:01
>You don't have to have sex to live a full and >productive life;
Ok, what about vision? Its not necessary for life, but nevertheless an arguably very positive component of it. My blind roomate lives a full and productive life. If a necessary pill were to cause vision loss, most people would try to avoid that side effect.
>I'm sure that there are plenty of people who >would disagree as they cannot conceive of life >without sex -- it is a defining part of their >persona -- but believe me, there is a larger >truth.
It is impossable to know just how any one individual's sexual health factors into their own personal emotional and mental health. For some individuals, sexual health is a cricial component of their mental health. There are hormones released during sexual activity that may have healing effects on the brain. For myself, I simply sleep better if I am capable.
>Would you rather be Mother Theresa or Paris >Hilton? ;)
This statement is really nonsensicle. There is a lot of imbetween. To assume that any individual with a functional sexual life is some sort of moron is silly.
I think that to suggest that somebody is 'wrong' for trying to regain normal and healthy sexual function is strange. Its a natural part of life that everybody should be entitled to. I really don't see how any individual who distains from sex such is really any better than another individual.
When I was on SSRI's I felt the same way. Not only did I loose my interest entirely, I even began to think of sex as being discusting and primitive. Oh, sure, sex is primitive to a certain extent, but so are a lot of things.
But, alas upon discontinuation I realized that (for me) an orgasm is theraputic. So what?
Linkadge
Posted by yxibow on July 10, 2008, at 2:33:01
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by linkadge on July 9, 2008, at 21:41:54
> >You don't have to have sex to live a full and >productive life;
>
> Ok, what about vision? Its not necessary for life, but nevertheless an arguably very positive component of it. My blind roomate lives a full and productive life. If a necessary pill were to cause vision loss, most people would try to avoid that side effect.
>
> >I'm sure that there are plenty of people who >would disagree as they cannot conceive of life >without sex -- it is a defining part of their >persona -- but believe me, there is a larger >truth.
>
> It is impossable to know just how any one individual's sexual health factors into their own personal emotional and mental health. For some individuals, sexual health is a cricial component of their mental health. There are hormones released during sexual activity that may have healing effects on the brain. For myself, I simply sleep better if I am capable.
>
> >Would you rather be Mother Theresa or Paris >Hilton? ;)
>
> This statement is really nonsensicle. There is a lot of imbetween. To assume that any individual with a functional sexual life is some sort of moron is silly.
>
> I think that to suggest that somebody is 'wrong' for trying to regain normal and healthy sexual function is strange. Its a natural part of life that everybody should be entitled to. I really don't see how any individual who distains from sex such is really any better than another individual.
>
> When I was on SSRI's I felt the same way. Not only did I loose my interest entirely, I even began to think of sex as being discusting and primitive. Oh, sure, sex is primitive to a certain extent, but so are a lot of things.
>
> But, alas upon discontinuation I realized that (for me) an orgasm is theraputic. So what?
>
> Linkadge
You know, you make some important points there -- I know we disagree on some medical topics, but Freud wasn't all wrong.
I don't know where I inherited my ideology (other than my OCD and perhaps the lack of overt sexuality of my folks, who I don't blame one way or the other, its just how some people express themselves) that sex was something to do it, get it (whatever act) done and over with and then obsess about how wrong it was.
Its a natural part of human society, and despite repression by religion in many parts of the world, I bet if you took an anonymous survey, most all of the world has masturbated at least once in their life.
So break out the videos and the magazines (whatever sexuality you are) and enjoy yourself. It is a release from anxiety, or it certainly can be if you get past your own feelings of guilt.-- tidings
Jay
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.