Talk:Medical prescription

I removed the following section from this article because the article is about the piece of paper that is the prescription, not about the prescription drugs themselves. Prescription drugs is a much larger subject. Samw 03:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

==National Health Service Prescriptions==

In England a patient visits a doctor (usually a General practitioner in the first instance) who is able to prescribe medicines. Each item on the prescription is liable to a prescription charge of £6.40 (as of April 2004). Those requiring regular prescriptions may make a saving by purchasing a pre-payment certificate which covers the cost of all prescriptions required for four months (at a cost of £33.40) or the year (at a cost of £91.80).

The money is used to help fund the National Health Service.

The devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales were examining, in 2004, proposals to scrap the charge and provide free prescriptions for all.

I disagree with your move of the content I added to prescription to prescription drug. It mentions no drugs in particular. It is more about charging. How can we resolve this amicably? Assuming you still feel you were right to move it, who should we ask to decide? I do not feel particularly passionate about this. But I know that, as a British national, if I were looking for more information on my prescription I would look under the article of that name, not prescription drug. --bodnotbod 12:20, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

The issue is that "prescription" can mean different things: the piece of paper, the drugs themselves or the whole system of controlling drugs. I don't have a strong opinion either on whether to include this material. I moved it because the "medical prescription" article itself is already quite long. Perhaps "medical prescription" itself could be a index/disambiguation page that links to "medical prescription - the document" for the current contents; "prescription drugs" and "prescription practices" for your material? If we're looking for a second opinion, Kpjas contributed to the original article. Samw 15:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Cheers. I've asked him to take a look. I take your point. I would be tempted to start a third article if another nationality wades in with material along my lines about their country. At the moment it seems a bit overkill to have 3 articles. Let's see what Kpjas says. --bodnotbod 15:22, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

People I really don't feel entitled to be a judge in your debate. I think you have done a good job and this helpful information stays within Wikipedia. That's a good thing. My comment: it would be fine to include and compare prescription systems and regulations in other countries (healthcare systems).

The matter where the information is going to be placed seems to me relatively unimportant.

Best wishes,
Kpjas 08:36, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh well... I leave it as it is, mainly because I'm very tired right now  ;o) If somebody else comes along who feels it should be changed, they'll go ahead and do it I guess. --bodnotbod 14:06, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Origination of Rx?

So where did this term come from, and what is its literal meaning? Thanks.

See the second paragraph under format and definition; there are several explanations. I'm not aware of a definitive answer. Samw 00:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

mg/ug mixup

For the mixup between microgram and milligram, I couldn't find a reference for "unbelievably, deaths have resulted from pharmacists blindly following such a misreading". If you have a reference, I would love to put such a dramatic statement back in. Samw 02:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a few references. I have a bit of a flu, and was about to go sleep, but feel free to add them to the article or I will tomorrow. [1] (http://www.hpso.com/newsletters/2004/mederrors.php) [2] (http://www.usp.org/patientSafety/briefsArticlesReports/qualityReview/qr481995-08-01a.html). I couldn't find a specific cite for deaths resulting from that error, but [3] (http://www.medicalmutual.com/risk/tips/HCF/26.html) refers to medical error as a leading cause of death (though presumably fairly little of that is due to perscription misreading). I guess there's no really sold proof, sorry. Feel free to leave the remark out, or tone it down to "this is likely to cause potentially fatal misunderstandings..." Pakaran 02:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added compromise commentary back in Samw 14:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)