Milledgeville Pharmacist Refuses to Fill Prescription for Miscarriage Patient...

Abortions past the low 20 week neck of the woods are illegal anyway except in mother's life in jeopardy cases. The first 1/2 of the pregnancy vs. the second 1/2 of the pregnancy the rules are VERY different.
 
Hawk said:
My point was that it is a methodology (Misoprostol for miscarriages) that may not universally be known or accepted AND because of its alternate uses the pharmacist must exercise a degree of skepticism.
Click to expand...

Using misoprostol for miscarriages is hardly new. I found an article from 2004 calling it the latest. I've read tons of reports saying it happened a lot. Probably not the most common bt hardly radical.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16120856

Study from 2005 found it was 88% effective in 800 women in a trial. That's nearly a decade ago.
 
zitothebrave said:
Using misoprostol for miscarriages is hardly new. I found an article from 2004 calling it the latest. I've read tons of reports saying it happened a lot. Probably not the most common bt hardly radical.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16120856

Study from 2005 found it was 88% effective in 800 women in a trial. That's nearly a decade ago.
Click to expand...

zitothebrave said:
Again, we're dealing in the real world here, not theoretical.
Click to expand...

Anyways, I never said that misoprostol was 'new' -- just that it's not a standard procedure.

From wikipedia:

Misoprostol is sometimes used to treat early fetal death in the absence of spontaneous miscarriage, but further research is needed to establish a safe, effective protocol.
 
Well I guess that ends the debate. If wikipedia says it is true. It is true.

Went to wikipedia, the source is from 2006, so yeah, just maybe a little out dated.
 
zitothebrave said:
Well I guess that ends the debate. If wikipedia says it is true. It is true.

Went to wikipedia, the source is from 2006, so yeah, just maybe a little out dated.
Click to expand...

So you produce studies from 2004 and 2005 that I am expected to view as timely, yet when I source one from 2006 it's suddenly dated?

Bottom line: This is not a common treatment for removing a miscarried fetus from a woman's body. It's more commonly used for abortions, inducing labor, and stomach ulcers.

Also, atleast I have the balls to openly use Wikipedia as a source as opposed to using the links from the Wikipedia references section and treating them as independent research.
 
No I'm a classic google scholar, I use google. Not wikipedia for that.

I sourced the old ones because they're old talking about studies. Your source said "Misoprostol is sometimes used to treat early fetal death in the absence of spontaneous miscarriage, but further research is needed to establish a safe, effective protocol."

You'd think they'd have done research in the 9 years.
 
Hawk said:
Yeah I'm going to put a lot of faith into random ass blogs and yahoo answers pages.
Click to expand...

Well it's at a minimum circumstantial evidence that it's still being prescribed. And with the number of hits on it and 2 of the leading hits being the experience, it's again circumstantial evidence it's still being prescribed.
 
zitothebrave said:
Well it's at a minimum circumstantial evidence that it's still being prescribed. And with the number of hits on it and 2 of the leading hits being the experience, it's again circumstantial evidence it's still being prescribed.
Click to expand...

You are now officially grasping at straws.

Btw, never said it shouldn't be or wasn't ever prescribed -- just noted its obscurity as a factor behind why the pharmacist didn't fill it.
 
goldfly said:
being irregular or not has nothing to do with it. it is done this way sometimes and the unless the pharmacist has a medical reasoning for withholding the drug a doctor said the patient should take, they should do their job and give that drug to the person

end of story
Click to expand...

I love how your signature below this contradicts this post. You should use the following signature "Fight unjust laws you disagree with unless it's liberal statist crap that I agree with in which you better obey or else".
 
zitothebrave said:
No just stating the obvious.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because my perception of every comment that you have made in this thread has been from the standpoint of somebody intentionally igoring the obvious and wedging themselves deeper and deeper into a corner with false logic.
 
Hawk said:
That's funny, because my perception of every comment that you have made in this thread has been from the standpoint of somebody intentionally igoring the obvious and wedging themselves deeper and deeper into a corner with false logic.
Click to expand...

False logic would be saying things like attacking small points and ignoring the larger picture. You've said tons of things then move the goal posts to another point.
 
zitothebrave said:
You've said tons of things then move the goal posts to another point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the point -- to provide a multitude of plausible reasons that this happened as opposed to your knee-jerk one (which you have offered zero evidence to support).
 
Garmel said:
I love how your signature below this contradicts this post. You should use the following signature "Fight unjust laws you disagree with unless it's liberal statist crap that I agree with in which you better obey or else".
Click to expand...

sure thing

i don't think you are following the quote correctly or understanding my post
 
Hawk said:
Yeah, that was the point -- to provide a multitude of plausible reasons that this happened as opposed to your knee-jerk one (which you have offered zero evidence to support).
Click to expand...

Well maybe if the Walmart gave a reason to th edoctor we wouldn't assume the worst.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top