swale, Ridwan

[dj75]

the doctors name was Ridwan Shabsigh......have you heard of him.......

Also, Swale how can i contact you about administering my PCT.......do you do that?

 

[SWALE]

No, I am sorry, I have not had the pleasure.

Can you come to Lansing?

 

[dj75]

No, I am sorry, I have not had the pleasure.

Can you come to Lansing?

no.........do you do anything over the phone......

 

[dj75]

He is the doctor from the cialis website.......

 

[SPE]

I do not believe he does.

 

[SWALE]

I can then only serve on a Consultation basis, working through your local doctor.

 

[mranak]

I believe we can resonably cite the DEA's perspective as the reason why we must see SWALE in person, regardless of the fact that SWALE is more capable of treating a hypogonadal man than most physicians. In fact, I will even assert that SWALE's analysis of the patient is much more comprehensive than that of almost any physician's visit, as demonstrated by SWALE's very comprehensive patient history form.

The somewhat understand the DEA's point that "A consumer can more easily provide false information in a questionnaire." However, SWALE also does proper bloodwork, which changes everything.

From my perspective, the DEA is becoming an increasing burden for law-abiding patients and legitimate practitioners while at the same time failing to stop obvious non-legitimate entities.

And I really wish they would change Adderall from schedule II to schedule III or higher. The 'no refills' limitation on schedule II medication is an unresonable burden for long-term-usage medication as such.

 

[cpeil2]

I believe we can resonably cite the DEA's perspective as the reason why we must see SWALE in person . . . .

It isn't just the DEA. The entire legal system has Internet prescribing in its crosshairs. Congress is studying it and weighing whether federal legislation is necessary in order to limit it or completely eliminate it.

More and more case law is interpreting existing statutes to require at least one face-to-face encounter between doc and patient in order for a prescription to be legal. In the case of illegal prescriptions, as Swale has noted, the trend is to see the patient as being just as culpable as the doc.

States that don't have statutues on point are rushing to put them into effect. Some of them are overbroad. One of the midwestern states, I can't remember which one (maybe Wisconsin) passed a statute recently that was so broadly written that it could apply to a presciption issued by an on-call doc to a patient who had called there own doc's office after hours.

 

[mranak]

This isn't a gripe directed at any of you.

From my perspective, the physicians working with the Internet pharmacies are already breaking the law, and these new laws of requiring the physician to do a physical examination is a burden on the rest of us.

Consider me. My physician works in the same practice as other doctors. I am well established to have asthma. Consider if I run out of albuterol at a time when my physician is out of town (like he really was, two weeks ago when my asthma really was getting worse). All that another physician in the office has to do is look at my records to see that albuterol is a legitimate medication that I need. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that, under some these new laws, they wouldn't be able to prescribe it to me unless I get an appointment and get a physical exam by the other physician... a $140 appointment (if I can get one) when all I needed was a $10 albuterol inhaler.

And the thing is, I am sure that many physicians only remember the average patient by the patient file anyway. And I don't blame them.

What about a psychiatrist? They routinely (and legitimately) prescribe medication for mental illness without a physical examination, unless simply looking at the person is considered a physical examination.