![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 30. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by blueboy on July 10, 2008, at 14:17:56
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.
>Sex does not add to either to survival or successful functioning, other than reproduction. Vision does. In fact, other than reproduction, sex is counterproductive.
However, because it is so programmed into most people's brains (to some degree or other), a large number of individuals find that sex has other beneficial effects. Enjoyment, intimacy, a feeling of humanity, and personal image would be four. I'm not discounting any of these. It's an individual matter.
What I am saying is that people who don't have sex don't necessarily suffer any lessening of life function (unless they want children), and can even have improved life function. It depends on their personality.
More difficult is balancing. How important is sex to you vs. how important is the beneficial effect of a drug that diminishes or eliminates your sexual functioning.
You can't assume that sexual dysfunction is a disqualification or even a problem for everyone. And some people might find that it is less of a problem than they would have anticipated.
> >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.
>
>
> 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.
>I didn't say that, sigh. I try not to engage in normative language like "should" when talking about sex.
Posted by linkadge on July 10, 2008, at 17:27:02
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by blueboy on July 10, 2008, at 14:17:56
>What I am saying is that people who don't have >sex don't necessarily suffer any lessening of >life function (unless they want children), and >can even have improved life function. It depends >on their personality.
Exactly. I am not arguing with this. It depends on many individual factors. That is why I am confused when somebody suggests that somebody else is out of line for wanting to regain their sexual function.
>You can't assume that sexual dysfunction is a >disqualification or even a problem for everyone. >And some people might find that it is less of a >problem than they would have anticipated.
Sure, that may be. But, this thread was started by somebody who made the decision to try viagra for sexual dysfunction. This person was replied to with essentially "you should't have even tried using viagra, you should just accept sexual dysfunction". This is a blanket statement that is not at all sensitive to the individual factors affecting this poster.
>I didn't say that, sigh. I try not to engage in >normative language like "should" when talking >about sex.
I don't think we are arguing at all.
Linkadge
Posted by Crotale on July 15, 2008, at 12:17:00
In reply to Please update! » Crotale, posted by atmlady on July 7, 2008, at 12:54:36
Hi everyone.
Well, I stopped going to that pharmacy. It was a chain, and I've found the service at chain pharmacies in general tends to be kind of cruddy. I found a great local place that's much better all around, and I get all my scripts filled there now. They even keep the Buprenex in stock for me (at the chain places I always had to call them a few days in advance to ask them to order it).
Alas, I forgot to check the name of the pharmacist who did this, so it looks like reporting him isn't an option.
atmlady: I've used Viagra before, and it works for me (for that well known antidepressant side effect). I don't know if it will necessarily work
for any woman who tries it but I definitely found it helpful!In regard to this debate over whether I should just stop having sex: I don't *want* to stop having sex. (And I rather suspect my partner wouldn't be too thrilled with that solution, either. It was his suggestion I ask my doctor for a Viagra script in the first place, btw; he says he gets more out of sex if I enjoy it.) I really don't understand why some people seem to disapprove of my choice.
Oh, and by the way...
>Would you rather be Mother Theresa or Paris Hilton?
Neither. I'd rather be *me*.
-Crotale
Posted by atmlady on July 15, 2008, at 13:11:58
In reply to Re: Please update!, posted by Crotale on July 15, 2008, at 12:17:00
So the viagra helps, huh? Forgive me if I'm pestering you with too many personal questions. If I am, just tell me to mind my own business, but I am curious as to how soon before the, er... act, you take the viagra, how much you take, and how you experience the effects of the drug. What I mean is, does it boost the libido or make the orgasms a bit easier to achieve or what exactly? And I guess my main question is, are you on an SSRI and trying to counter-act the sexual side effects?
Again, I apologize if these questions are too personal, but your answers would be if interest to probably 10 million women on SSRI's right now! You could babble-mail me if you'd rather not post to the world, I suppose....at any rate, thanks for the update!
Posted by Crotale on July 15, 2008, at 13:58:56
In reply to Wow, a ray of hope! THANKS! » Crotale, posted by atmlady on July 15, 2008, at 13:11:58
Hi atmlady. No problem about "personal questions," if I weren't comfortable talking about sex I wouldn't have posted about having been prescribed Viagra. :)
> So the viagra helps, huh?
Yes indeed!
> I am curious as to how soon before the, er... act, you take the viagra,
You know, that's an interesting question. I never actually tried to determine how long it takes it to work. I just take it when I go to bed. I'd guess it takes about 30-60 minutes for it to take effect.
> how much you take,
50mg does the trick for me.
> and how you experience the effects of the drug.
> What I mean is, does it boost the libido or make
> the orgasms a bit easier to achieve or what
> exactly?It's not an aphrodisiac -- I know a lot of people lose interest in sex on ADs, but Viagra (and the other PDE-5 inhibitors) won't bring back the libido in those cases. It improves sensitivity, thus making sex more physically pleasurable and making it easier to achieve orgasm.
>And I guess my main question is, are you on an SSRI and trying to counter-act the sexual side effects?
I'm on an MAOI (Parnate), actually, but yes, it's for sexual side effects. Pretty much all the research about the PDE-5 inhibitors for antidepressant side effects is with SSRIs, and I'm sure it works more or less the same.
> You could babble-mail me if you'd rather not post to the world, I suppose....at any rate, thanks for the update!
Glad to be of help. Do you think you're going to give it a try? If so, good luck!
-Crotale
This is the end of the 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.