The Republic of T.

Prilosec Update

Thanks to the readers who made generous offers. My exceedingly wonderful husband found me a supply out in the suburbs, and is bringing it home to me this afternoon.

The Heartburn of Prilosec

It started yesterday.

Like a lot of people I have G.E.R.D. — that's Gastroesophogeal Reflux Disease for the unschooled. I was diagnosed with it a few years ago, after I noticed a nightly tendency to involuntarily hurl up my dinner, accompanied with burning chest pains and the like. The lowever valve of my esophagus doesn't close properly. So, my doctor prescribed some medicine and that took care of it. Then I changed jobs and health insurance last year, and was told the medication would not be covered because there was an over the counter medicine I could take: Prilosec.

I took it. It worked. Fine.

Fine, that is , until this week. Needing to pick up a new supply, I went to a drug store near home, only to find they were completely out of stock. I grumbled a bit, and went a few more blocks away to another drug store, which turnout to be out of stock too. I bought another medicine (I needed something) and went home. This afternoon, I ventured into another drug store near my office, thinking I'd surely find what I needed. But again they were out.

That's when I decided something weird had to be coing on. Was there a recall or something I didn't know about? I'm embarassed to say that I did not immediately turn to the web for an answer, at least not until long after getting home and getting the kid off to bed tonight. A search for the name of the medication reveals there's a shortage going on.

Prilosec was the No. 1 selling drug in the world when it was being sold only by prescription. It is still taking off.

In recent months it hasn’t been uncommon to find nothing but the display material where the Prilosec OTC would usually be on the shelves of big box stores. After checking two stores last Sunday without finding one box, we found an entire display at an Osco drug store.

It was like finding stacks of “Tickle Me Elmo” boxes.

…Proctor & Gamble, which distributes Prilosec OTC, apparently misjudged the popularity when it was first offered over the counter instead of by prescription only.

“There are apparently more frequent heartburn sufferers than we ever imagined,’’ said Kurt Weingand, associate director of Proctor & Gamble Health Science Institute. “The real source of the problem is not as much our supply chain as it is progressively increasing demand.

…Weingand said Proctor & Gamble is trying to allocate the Prilosec OTC it has on an equitable basis. The big box stores are not getting supplies any faster than smaller chains and the Southeast states, which Weingand calls, “the heartburn belt’’ are not getting treated any differently than the Midwest.

The price isn’t rising either, which would be a hint that somebody was taking advantage of the situation.

“We apologize for any shortages. We believe that it is a short-term problem that we will have fixed quickly. People should probably call ahead to their favorite store. In some cases that store may not have Prilosec OTC but another store will,’’ Weingand said.

Well that's just ducky. And I have the added luck of being in a city full of "Type As" who probably get themselves wound up enough on a daily basis that they've developed their own digestive crises, and thus have cleared the shelves in D.C. Tomorrow, the hubby will conduct a search in the suburbs where he works, to see the magical pill can be found out there. I hope he does. Otherwise I'm going to be stuck with second-rate treatments that don't work as well, or I'm going to have to see if I can get a prescription for the "purple pill" I was taking before; if it's covered by insurance, that is.

The Prilosec shortage is expected to last until December. Great. Well, now I know what I want for the holidays, and I mean by the casefull. No more of this buying a box every couple of weeks. When it comes back, I'm laying in a supply. I'm going to be like Elaine with the "Today Sponge" on Seinfeld.

Bush & AIDS

Being so preoccupied with the Bush administration's mishandling of the "war on terror" and the situation in Iraq, I realize I haven't said much about the administration's policies regarding HIV/AIDS, though it's an important issue to me and one I worked on for a number of years. This occured to me upon reading a couple of articles concerning Bush's recent statements on HIV AIDS.

First, I thought it telling that Bush chose a black church as the setting for his remarks.

President Bush proposed Wednesday that the executive branch assume significant control over the program that has been the backbone of federal assistance for Americans infected with AIDS

Bush said that the $2 billion Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, which since 1990 has been the government's largest subsidy of medical and other services specifically for HIV-positive people in the United States, "takes too little account of the most urgent needs." He said the administration should have greater power to decide where the money is distributed and how it is spent, focusing more on paying for medicine and doctors' visits than on social services.

Bush made his proposals at a black church there during a speech that interwove themes of AIDS and religion.

I found it interesting for several reasons. First, because because of the disproportionate rates of new HIV/AIDS cases among African Americans, and second because of the (predominantly white) religious right's ongoing efforts to use religious beliefs to try and activate African Americans on their issues. Additionally, I found it interesting because when it comes to HIV/AIDS in African American communities, African American churches have often been reluctant to address HIV/AIDS issues because of intense reluctance to deal with issues of sexuality that are inherent in many issues related to the epidemic. Often those issues are met with outright hosltility.

I can't help but wonder how many people living with HIV/AIDS would feel some trepidation upon approaching religious organization in search of social services.

Bush, again, argued for religious groups to deliver more social services, saying, "People shouldn't fear the fact if there's a cross on the wall and an AIDS program in that building."

Bush's statement, to me, ignores the reality that many people—particularly those who are gay, lesbian, or transgendered—will be afraid because of previous negative encounters with religious institutions and self-professed "people of faith". In smaller, rural communities—where faith-based service programs might be the only game in town—people whose experience with religious institutions has been hurtful or negative may simply decline to seek services. That may in turn mean less acess to treatment, as some activists point out the relationship between social services and successful treatment.

Terji Anderson, executive director of the National Association of People With AIDS, criticized treating social services for people with HIV "as somehow icing on the cake," saying that some people cannot get to doctors without transportation or child care for which the law now pays.

So I'm less than convinced—to say the least—that Bush's proposed changes will do anyone much good, except for churches that are successful in getting some of that government cash. I will give Bush a tiny bit of credit for ceasing to beat the "abstinence-only" drum for at least a minute.

President Bush said on Wednesday for the first time that the United States should "learn from the experience" of countries like Uganda in fighting AIDS and embraced the use of condoms to prevent its spread, a sensitive issue among conservative groups that have fought the adoption of any strategy that does not focus on abstinence.

…Mr. Bush said. "They've started what they call the A.B.C. approach to prevention of this deadly disease. That stands for: Abstain, be faithful in marriage, and, when appropriate, use condoms."

And I didn't think Bush could surprise me. Still, I'd like to hear him expound on when he thinks condoms are "appropriate." I bet his base would too.

Bracing Myself

It's come to this. That thing you see on my arm is a wrist brace, purchased at CVS this afternoon, during my lunch break. I wore it the rest of the day at work, and put it on again at home once I sat down at the computer to catch up on email and blogging. The pain in the wrist, the occasional tingling and numbness in the fingers wasn't going away. So I figured extra support was needed. Anyone have any other suggestions for carpal tunnel?

No Health Care for Michigan Gays?

Via Atrios.

This is unbelievable.

Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

…Other opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Democratic Rep. Chris Kolb of Ann Arbor, the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by +health+ care providers, it does not ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said. [emphasis mine].

This literally makes me want to vomit.

Here's my question for the Michigan Catholics who supported this bill. Was there anyone that Jesus refused to heal? Whom did he turn away?

For once, I am completely, and utterly speechless. This is just another example of how compassionate conservatism is a crock of shit.

Update: Apparently, the law bars health care providers from refusing service to those who belong to protected classes under Michigan law. Gays, however, are not protected from discrimination under Michigan law. So under this law, gays can be denied services by health care providers who morally object to homosexuality.

"Abstinence Only" No Protection

Back when I was in college, I was pretty heavily involved in HIV/AIDS prevention education. As a "Peer Sexuality Educator" I went to countless dorms and student groups leading workshops and discussions on everything from HIV prevention to accquaintance rape.

Every time I talked about STD prevention I always talked about abstinence - saying that the only sure way not to get an STD is not to engage in sexual activity - but I never talked abstinence exclusively. I always included information about other methods of protection from STD, like condom use. Why? Because I knew even then that just because people say they will abstain doesn't necessarily mean then always will when the spirit is willing and the flesh is willing too.

I knew that being a responsible educator meant giving people all of the information I had at my disposal, in order to allow them to make the most informed decision they could. And if there was a question I couldn't answer, I would always say "I don't know the answer, but I'll do my best to find out and get back to you." And I always did. Half the information won't do when the stakes are as high as they are in that arena.

I've watched, somewhat dismayed, while the Bush administration touts "abstinence only" education - that is, a practice in which abstinence is taught as the only method of protection, and other methods of protection (like condom use, dental dams, etc.) are not mentioned. It's a favorite of the far right, and a new study suggests that it doesn't work.

Women on the Verge

This is a new one on me, but apparently there's a recently discovered rare condition that sexual medicine researchers are just beginning to document and research among women: persistent sexual arousal syndrome. It's described as follows:

The syndrome is the opposite of the usual female sexual complaint -- difficulty getting aroused. Instead, patients sustain unrelenting physical arousal, no matter how many orgasms they have. They are not nymphomaniacs; they do not experience desire. Rather, they feel the vaginal congestion and pulsation of arousal, and it is not about pleasure -- far from it.

Walking around constantly on the verge of orgasm? That would get irritating. Maddening, even.

Women on the Verge

This is a new one on me, but apparently there's a recently discovered rare condition that sexual medicine researchers are just beginning to document and research among women: persistent sexual arousal syndrome. It's described as follows:

The syndrome is the opposite of the usual female sexual complaint -- difficulty getting aroused. Instead, patients sustain unrelenting physical arousal, no matter how many orgasms they have. They are not nymphomaniacs; they do not experience desire. Rather, they feel the vaginal congestion and pulsation of arousal, and it is not about pleasure -- far from it.

Walking around constantly on the verge of orgasm? That would get irritating. Maddening, even.

For You, For Them. Just do it.

I'm remiss for not posting something about this earlier, but I've been follwing the news about the case of Terri Schiavo in Florida. Setting aside my opinion as to whether or not the Florida state government or any other government should have a right to intervene (I vote "No"), there is something in this article that leapt out at me:

Terri Schiavo left no written instructions, but her husband testified that she told him she would not want to live in a vegetative state. The courts have been clear, legal experts said, that spouses have the authority to make decisions in such cases. (Emphasis mine.)

"... left no written instructions..." That says it all. No matter how you feel about this particular case those four words should make you stop and think about your own situation. If you step off a curb in front of a bus this afternoon, does anyone know what measure you do and/or do not want taken to keep you alive? Does anyone know the conditions underwhich you don't want life-extending measures taken, or at which you want them ceased? Does anyone even know who you want to make these kinds of decisions if you are unable to make them yourself, or to make your wishes known. And the most important question of all: Can they prove it.

Get it in writing. Don't depend on telling your partner or spouse orally. Don't assume that the person you want to make those decisions will be allowed to do so. Sit down with the person you want to make these decisions if you can't, talk about what your wants would be in this situation, and then get it written down, witnessed and signed in the form of an advance directive and/or medical power of attorney. You can go to a lawyer or you can use resources available online.

I can't imagine being in Terri Schiavo's sitaution, but I know personally that it's not something I'd want, and I wouldn't want the people I love to have to wonder or fight over what they think I might have wanted. So, I have these documents now, and - if you ask me - everyone should.

For You, For Them. Just do it.

I'm remiss for not posting something about this earlier, but I've been follwing the news about the case of Terri Schiavo in Florida. Setting aside my opinion as to whether or not the Florida state government or any other government should have a right to intervene (I vote "No"), there is something in this article that leapt out at me:

Terri Schiavo left no written instructions, but her husband testified that she told him she would not want to live in a vegetative state. The courts have been clear, legal experts said, that spouses have the authority to make decisions in such cases. (Emphasis mine.)

"... left no written instructions..." That says it all. No matter how you feel about this particular case those four words should make you stop and think about your own situation. If you step off a curb in front of a bus this afternoon, does anyone know what measure you do and/or do not want taken to keep you alive? Does anyone know the conditions underwhich you don't want life-extending measures taken, or at which you want them ceased? Does anyone even know who you want to make these kinds of decisions if you are unable to make them yourself, or to make your wishes known. And the most important question of all: Can they prove it.

Get it in writing. Don't depend on telling your partner or spouse orally. Don't assume that the person you want to make those decisions will be allowed to do so. Sit down with the person you want to make these decisions if you can't, talk about what your wants would be in this situation, and then get it written down, witnessed and signed in the form of an advance directive and/or medical power of attorney. You can go to a lawyer or you can use resources available online.

I can't imagine being in Terri Schiavo's sitaution, but I know personally that it's not something I'd want, and I wouldn't want the people I love to have to wonder or fight over what they think I might have wanted. So, I have these documents now, and - if you ask me - everyone should.