HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

an abx observation

Support Forums
>
Lyme Disease
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 9/18/2010 12:17 PM (GMT 0)
just a quick post to vent about this. i have read posts on here where the patient was + for lyme but the doctor refused to treat or treat long enough for lyme. i just find it ironic that i go to the doc and they are more than willing to hand over abx scripts for the least little thing i am having...got a cough? here is some abx. got a sore throat? here is some abx. and they dont even do bloodwork or for that matter an exam. why not just go ahead and treat the lyme just to make sure and for the needed amount of time?? idea
Posted 9/18/2010 9:21 PM (GMT 0)
I agree 100% with you! I was going to be given antibiotics long term for a bladder infection. It just doesn't make sense.
Posted 9/19/2010 6:12 AM (GMT 0)
This is part of the ongoing controversy between doctors...and one of the biggest arguments is that it's common for long-term antibiotics (taken in excess of a year) to be prescribed for acne, which is often done for teens, and considered safe.
Posted 9/19/2010 11:44 AM (GMT 0)
It is funny you mention antibiotics and acne, because a coworker of mine was telling me he was on antibiotics for over a year for acne. No one ever questioned it.
Posted 9/20/2010 6:48 PM (GMT 0)
Amen! I could not believe that a friend of mine was on Doxy long term in the same doseage that was prescribed to me for Lyme. My son was once prescribed abx for a virus and when i questioned the ped. he said 'Most parents feel better if I write a prescription". ***?!?! And then to think that some people are being denied abx for Lyme?!?! I mean, come on! How can there not be something wrong with that?
Posted 9/21/2010 4:07 AM (GMT 0)
I wonder if some of it might be due to the recent exposure of the over-prescribing of antibiotics throughout the last couple of decades? I know I've seen some of this in the media in the last couple of years and the medical community as a whole seems to be turning away from prescribing antibiotics when they really aren't needed.

Growing up, my mother didn't take me to the doctor when I had a virus or flu because "there's nothing they can do." It just has to run its course... However, I saw a lot of my less-educated (if I can say that) friends' parents taking them to the doctor constantly and always getting antibiotics, which I never understood.

Now we're dealing with super-bugs that are immune to antibiotics because of all of the over-prescribing. I've heard many doctors advise not to take antibiotics unless you absolutely need them, which I think is great advice...but there are likely going to be a lot of doctor who go overboard, as they have with narcotics. Just because someone invented the life-preserver doesn't mean we all stop going boating; just because it's been advised to use caution with something doesn't mean there aren't still valid times to use it.

Honestly I think a lot of medicine has to do with current trends (e.g. the early 2000s seem to be the time of alternative medicine and supplements). Just my two cents...
Posted 9/21/2010 4:54 AM (GMT 0)
The resistant super bugs are actually thought to come mainly from Agricultural uses of antibiotics...  Tons of abx are given to animals (beef, chicken, etc.) to fatten the animals faster and keep them healthy enough to send to slaughter despite the deplorable conditions in which they are forced to live (feedlot conditions are horrendous on most large-scale "factory farms" - overcrowding, manuer buildup, low quality feed, etc.).  To fix this, (in my opinion) there needs to be a ban on giving animals abx unless the drugs are absolutely needed for the animal's health, and there also needs to be a change in the way the animals are housed and fed...

Ok, stepping off my soap box...

 

✚ New Topic ✚ Reply