![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 49 to 73 of 73. Go back in thread:
Posted by stjames on September 25, 2001, at 12:26:40
In reply to Re: No prescription needed » stjames, posted by SLS on September 24, 2001, at 1:13:43
> Actually, this is just a brief comment/question. I don't think it is necessary for you to address the issue regarding your illegal acts. As I understand the point being made, the real question is whether or not you suggest to others on Psycho-Babble that they smoke pot and tell them where they can get it.
>
> Do you?James here...
You make a good point. I also have never had any problem with you mentioning your choice to self medicate, as it is kept within the context of "this is what I do" and not advocating that others do the same.
james
Posted by Jane D on September 25, 2001, at 13:08:19
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2001, at 12:19:37
> People would still be able to talk about taking drugs and to warn others about the dangers. They just wouldn't be able to say where specifically they obtained them.
++ ++ Would we be able to talk about the legalities of this? That is, if anyone was fool enough to want to after sampling the excerpts posted so far. Or at least post references to other, more comprehensive, forums (about legality, not how to).
> > > I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm just not sure I want to be so associated with this myself.
>
> I guess partly it's the potential risk, and partly I'm just not sure it looks good?++ ++ Either of those is a good enough reason. Your risk, your call. Your responsibility, your call.
> > both quotes ... suggest to me that this is really about whether people should be allowed to (and are competent to) make their own health decisions.
>
> Others may wonder that, but this site wouldn't be here if I didn't think people could make decisions for themselves.
>++++ Yes. I know. It's why I'm here. If banning posts about how to order drugs is necessary to preserve that aspect of this site, ban away. If banning these posts is necessary to preserve your sanity or peace of mind, do it. In theory I believe that restricting any information sets a precedent for restricting more. In practice I agree that we all draw lines. Your previous lines have consistently been drawn favor of free discussions and letting people make up their own minds so I really don't believe that this line, wherever it ends up falling, is going to significantly change that.
Jane
Posted by Jane D on September 25, 2001, at 13:14:14
In reply to Re: Prescription needed, posted by stjames on September 24, 2001, at 18:15:54
> James here....
>
> In the state of Louisiana, Howard Young was
> prosecuted and found guility. For non scheduled meds.James - I couldn't find this case. I admit that I didn't look that hard but you have to admit that this is a little harder than finding basic med information from google. If you have any more details about this case - what, how much, sentence, jurisdiction - I'd be very interested. I am ONLY interested, not asking you to provide ammunition for the enemy (see my above post).
Jane
Posted by stjames on September 25, 2001, at 15:35:48
In reply to Re: the crux of the issue?, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2001, at 21:12:27
To me this has been disucssed enough and it is now time for you, Dr Bob, to set a policy as this is your board. Then we can all move on to the real issue of support.
james
Posted by stjames on September 25, 2001, at 15:38:16
In reply to Re: the crux of the issue? » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 25, 2001, at 0:50:19
> Dear Dr. Bob,
>
> The crux of the issue as I see it is whether or not to allow the posting of messages within which someone has *recommended* to someone else:
>
> 1. that they initiate a change in their treatment regime outside the milieu of the doctor-patient relationship, regardless of legal issues.
>
> 2. that they take a drug that is not approved by the FDA.
>
> 3. a source from which one may procure FDA-approved medications without the requirement of a prescription.
>
> 4. a source from which one may procure medications that have not been approved by the FDA, with or without a prescription.
>
> 5. a course of action that is known to medicine as being injurious.James here....
SLS is right on the mark, for me ! Thanks for clarifying.
james
Posted by SLS on September 25, 2001, at 17:30:30
In reply to Re: the crux of the issue?, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2001, at 21:12:27
Dr. Bob,
Should you decide to consult with a lawyer, I think you should try to find one who has some experience dealing with Internet and "accessory to the crime" stuff. My concern is that a lawyer who is not familiar with this area of law might be apt to err on the side of caution and council you to place unnecessary limits on the type discourse you would allow.
- Scott
Posted by shelliR on September 25, 2001, at 17:40:17
In reply to Re: Prescription needed » stjames, posted by Jane D on September 25, 2001, at 13:14:14
> >James here.....
>
> >......... My local pharmacist agrees with the way I use these terms. Scheduled meds are 1,2,3,4, and 5. Controled meds are all > >the prescribed meds, including the scheduled ones.
> > James here....> > In the state of Louisiana, Howard Young was
> > prosecuted and found guility. For non scheduled meds.
>"Suddenly a small child cried out, 'But the emperor has no clothes on!' The child was right."
( Hans Christian Anderson)
Posted by SLS on September 25, 2001, at 17:40:37
In reply to Re: the crux of the issue?, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2001, at 21:12:27
There really is a very simple answer to all of this.
I'm hoping you come up with it on your own.
- Scott
Posted by stjames on September 25, 2001, at 21:23:25
In reply to Re: Prescription needed » Jane D, posted by shelliR on September 25, 2001, at 17:40:17
> "Suddenly a small child cried out, 'But the emperor has no clothes on!' The child was right."
> ( Hans Christian Anderson)James here....
Sigh.
Posted by Jane D on September 25, 2001, at 22:45:47
In reply to Re: Prescription needed » Jane D, posted by shelliR on September 25, 2001, at 17:40:17
> "Suddenly a small child cried out, 'But the emperor has no clothes on!' The child was right."
???
Posted by shelliR on September 25, 2001, at 23:59:37
In reply to Re: Prescription needed, posted by Jane D on September 25, 2001, at 22:45:47
> > "Suddenly a small child cried out, 'But the emperor has no clothes on!' The child was right."
>
>
> ???:-)
You don't know the tale "The Emperor's New Clothes"? The story is about an emperor who is obsessed about his appearance. Two swindling and clever tailors come to town and tell him that they will create the most amazing costume for him to wear to a procession. They work and work, but when they show it to him, he sees nothing. (There is nothing to see--they are conning him). They convince him that of course it is there, but only the most brilliant and powerful can see the cloth. So, not wanting to admit that he is not brillant and powerful, he wears their costume (or of course their lack of costume). The Emperor parades down the street stark naked (thinking he is clothed) and no one in the crowd says anything (he must be wearing clothes, afterall, he is their Emperor. ) Suddenly a small child cried out, 'But the emperor has no clothes on!" The child was right. At this point the crowd understands and is able to see through the emperor's vanity, and they all call out, yes, the emperor has no clothes.
So when anyone exhibits the true vanity and arrogance (or perhaps insecurity) it takes to never admit they are wrong--even to the extent of changing the terms of the US code of law to save face, I see them in the procession, walking unknowingly naked.
Shelli
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2001, at 23:13:33
In reply to Re: the crux of the issue? » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 25, 2001, at 0:50:19
> The crux of the issue as I see it is whether or not to allow the posting of messages within which someone has *recommended* to someone else:
>
> 1. that they initiate a change in their treatment regime outside the milieu of the doctor-patient relationship, regardless of legal issues.
>
> 2. that they take a drug that is not approved by the FDA.The issue there is self-medication, which is now addressed in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#decide
Posts like that are allowed, though suggesting would be preferred to recommending.
> 3. a source from which one may procure FDA-approved medications without the requirement of a prescription.
>
> 4. a source from which one may procure medications that have not been approved by the FDA, with or without a prescription.That's what we've been discussing here...
> 5. a course of action that is known to medicine as being injurious.
If that's a likely outcome, then that's just not supportive.
> The crux of the issue is whether or not a line should be drawn separating that which one may and may not recommend to another or provide as information, and to use this criteria to allow or disallow individual posts. That's what we are talking about here, right?
About whether to draw a line regarding this issue and, if so, where, yes.
> the status of a medical alternative be illegal is not sufficient for me not to suggest it to others or pursue it myself.
You may suggest the alternative to others, and of course you may pursue it yourself, but the new policy (see below) is that you may not use this site to help others to obtain it.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2001, at 23:14:39
In reply to Re: Posting policy - white flag raised » Dr. Bob, posted by Jane D on September 25, 2001, at 13:08:19
> > People would still be able to talk about taking drugs and to warn others about the dangers. They just wouldn't be able to say where specifically they obtained them.
>
> Would we be able to talk about the legalities of this?Sure!
> Your previous lines have consistently been drawn favor of free discussions and letting people make up their own minds so I really don't believe that this line, wherever it ends up falling, is going to significantly change that.
Thanks for your vote of confidence, I appreciate it. :-)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2001, at 23:17:26
In reply to Re: the crux of the issue?, posted by stjames on September 25, 2001, at 15:35:48
> There really is a very simple answer to all of this.
>
> I'm hoping you come up with it on your own.
>
> - ScottWhy, would it have been cheating if you had just told me?
> To me this has been disucssed enough and it is now time for you, Dr Bob, to set a policy as this is your board. Then we can all move on to the real issue of support.
>
> jamesI did want to see if I was missing the crux of the issue... Well, as you've probably guessed, I would in fact like to draw a new line:
Please do not use this site to exchange information on how to import into the US (1) prescription medication without a prescription or (2) medication that hasn't been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Both activities appear to be illegal. It's fine to discuss here the pros and cons of the medications, just not how to obtain them in those ways. In fact, this site should not be used to facilitate any illegal activities.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#illegal
Thanks, everyone, for all your input on this. It may not be the result you wanted, but I do think it's in the best interest of this community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Zo on September 28, 2001, at 0:59:19
In reply to Re: time to set a policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2001, at 23:17:26
get those little white "Zo" thingies to work for me?
Mac/IE 5.0.Really, though, congratualtions to all for a job well done!
Zo
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2001, at 13:27:18
In reply to Re: the crux of the issue, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2001, at 23:13:33
Hi Dr.
> I did want to see if I was missing the crux of the issue... Well, as you've probably guessed, I would in fact like to draw a new line:
> Why, would it have been cheating if you had just told me?
Maybe. I felt it was more important for you to arrive at an answer on your own. It was my preference to participate in the process without suggesting a remedy. Yours is a pretty good one. Its specificity should allow for effective policing by the moderator. Personally, I would have preferred to have the information regarding drug sources remain available to me.
Now, I have three more questions that I think are relevant.
1. Is it unequivocally illegal for you as an administrator of a website on American soil to facilitate the exchange of information regarding the procurement of drugs not approved by the FDA?
2. Does facilitating the exchange of e-mail addresses for the purpose of procuring the aforementioned drugs represent a violation of law or of your policy of posting?
3. What about posting a URL to another URL that lists the URLs of sources?
Hope this helps.
Regarding making recommendations to others:> > 5. a course of action that is known to medicine as being injurious.
> If that's a likely outcome, then that's just not supportive.
> > the status of a medical alternative be illegal is not sufficient for me not to suggest it to others or pursue it myself.
> You may suggest the alternative to others, and of course you may pursue it yourself, but the new policy (see below) is that you may not use this site to help others to obtain it.
There is something to be said for peer pressure and allowing posters to be unsupportive of unsupportive posters without so quickly being reprimanded for being so. Since judging which posts are unsupportive is probably subjective and a matter of opinion, I think civility should remain the focus in such exchanges.
2 1/2 cents.
- Scott
Posted by shelliR on September 28, 2001, at 17:44:13
In reply to Re: time to set a policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2001, at 23:17:26
> >
I want to add two questions to Scott's> Please do not use this site to exchange information on how to import into the US (1) prescription medication without a prescription
If you are discussing a specific drug, e.g. "x has really benefited me, etc. " and the question comes back, "Oh, I never heard of that, where did you get this drug, " is the following answer allowable: "I ordered it online." or "you can get it online, just do a search" unacceptable. No urls of course, just the info to clear up that it is not available from their local drugstore. I see this as as part of the natural flow of info, rather than saying, "this drug is illegal. I am not allowed to tell you where I got it"
or (2) medication that hasn't been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.
Both activities appear to be illegal.what about when we have a prescription to order for three months a medication that has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration--(it is apparently legal to do so). "How did you get it". "I got a prescription from my pdoc; I order it off the internet."
Obviously my two questions both are attempting to clarify whether it is okay to say you got something off the internet, without specifically pointing someone is any direction.
>
Shelli
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 28, 2001, at 18:24:20
In reply to Re: time to set a policy » Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on September 28, 2001, at 17:44:13
> 1. Is it unequivocally illegal for you as an administrator of a website on American soil to facilitate the exchange of information regarding the procurement of drugs not approved by the FDA?
Not to my knowledge.
> 2. Does facilitating the exchange of e-mail addresses for the purpose of procuring the aforementioned drugs represent a violation of law or of your policy of posting?
See above regarding the former, and yes regarding the latter.
> 3. What about posting a URL to another URL that lists the URLs of sources?
That still would be facilitating.
> If you are discussing a specific drug, e.g. "x has really benefited me, etc. " and the question comes back, "Oh, I never heard of that, where did you get this drug, " is the following answer allowable: "I ordered it online." or "you can get it online, just do a search" unacceptable. No urls of course, just the info to clear up that it is not available from their local drugstore.
Information that general I guess would be OK.
> what about when we have a prescription to order for three months a medication that has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration--(it is apparently legal to do so). "How did you get it". "I got a prescription from my pdoc; I order it off the internet."
That would be OK with me because it's only very general information. But I'm not sure that being OK with the FDA means it would be OK with Customs, which seems to insist on a prescription *and* approval by the FDA.
> Obviously my two questions both are attempting to clarify whether it is okay to say you got something off the internet, without specifically pointing someone is any direction.
Besides to the Internet, you mean. :-)
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2001, at 22:14:18
In reply to Re: more questions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 28, 2001, at 18:24:20
Dear Dr. Bob,
You've done a wonderful job.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2001, at 18:39:53
In reply to Re: time to set a policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2001, at 23:17:26
[Posted by JohnX on October 24, 2001, at 11:59:07]
> Doctor Bob,
>
> Is it ok to talk about medications that are in
> the pipeline? or people who are actually in the
> clinical trials? Also, if a medication was obtained
> with a doctor's prescription in accordance to
> all the FDA guidelines on personal importations,
> would it be ok to post one's experience?
>
> PS. I'm sure you are well aware of the FDA
> rules regarding personal importanations of medications.
> It is at their discretion as to whether or not to
> allow a medication for a few months be allowed into
> the US (with a US doctor prescription).
> This "loop-hole" is specifically used to
> protect foreign travelers in the US or treatment
> refractory US patients.
>
> Thanks,
> John
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2001, at 18:19:42
In reply to Redirected: medication that hasn't been approved, posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2001, at 18:39:53
> > Is it ok to talk about medications that are in
> > the pipeline? or people who are actually in the
> > clinical trials? Also, if a medication was obtained
> > with a doctor's prescription in accordance to
> > all the FDA guidelines on personal importations,
> > would it be ok to post one's experience?Discussing medications and experiences is fine, my concern is just with sharing ways of obtaining them without a prescription. I'm not sure what you mean, talking about people in clinical trials...
> > PS. I'm sure you are well aware of the FDA
> > rules regarding personal importanations of medications.
> > It is at their discretion as to whether or not to
> > allow a medication for a few months be allowed into
> > the US (with a US doctor prescription).
> > This "loop-hole" is specifically used to
> > protect foreign travelers in the US or treatment
> > refractory US patients.Right, I've linked to the FDA site from the FAQ. The thing is, *Customs* doesn't say anything about "enforcement discretion"...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#illegal
Bob
Posted by JohnX2 on October 26, 2001, at 2:15:37
In reply to Re: medication that hasn't been approved, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2001, at 18:19:42
> > > Is it ok to talk about medications that are in
> > > the pipeline? or people who are actually in the
> > > clinical trials? Also, if a medication was obtained
> > > with a doctor's prescription in accordance to
> > > all the FDA guidelines on personal importations,
> > > would it be ok to post one's experience?
>
> Discussing medications and experiences is fine, my concern is just with sharing ways of obtaining them without a prescription. I'm not sure what you mean, talking about people in clinical trials...
>
> > > PS. I'm sure you are well aware of the FDA
> > > rules regarding personal importanations of medications.
> > > It is at their discretion as to whether or not to
> > > allow a medication for a few months be allowed into
> > > the US (with a US doctor prescription).
> > > This "loop-hole" is specifically used to
> > > protect foreign travelers in the US or treatment
> > > refractory US patients.
>
> Right, I've linked to the FDA site from the FAQ. The thing is, *Customs* doesn't say anything about "enforcement discretion"...
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#illegal
>
> BobBob,
Thanks for your follow up.
I can expect that medications not approved
in the us (i.e. specifically denied by the
fda) or on lists of controlled substances make
perfect sense not to be acceptable to discussions
on this board with respect to acquistions.Some meds like Manerix, were never submitted
for FDA approval because the company Roche did
not feel the $$'s required for approval could
overcome the "wrap" given to MAOI's when the
tyramine issues arrose. But there is absolutely
nothing in the us FDA's guidelines indicating
that manerix is a controlled substance, so in
that case I would expect it to be ok to be
discussed.As far as clinical trials, many people have tried
Reboxetine, including people in the us. This med
has never received officia FDA approval in the us;
its in limbo. But people would be interested in their
experience.Anyways, I agree. We need to stay within the bounds
of the legal system. I believe that the
competitive nature inspired by the US capitalistic
system works in our favor with regards to innovation,
(wow, let's see how many new meds pop out as these
SSRI's go off patent). In many cases the fda
is very overbearing and as such the costs to
develop new meds is very prohibiting (for the protection
of our health). Other countries
are more liberal about medication approval. I guess
it is a double edged sword.Thanks for your reply,
John
Posted by JohnX2 on October 26, 2001, at 2:21:50
In reply to Re: medication that hasn't been approved, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2001, at 18:19:42
> Discussing medications and experiences is fine, my concern is just with sharing ways of obtaining them without a prescription. I'm not sure what you mean, talking about people in clinical trials...I'm referring to meds that are available outside
the US, but are in clinical trials in the US.
Ex. memantine.-john
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2001, at 11:57:10
In reply to Re: medication that hasn't been approved » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnX2 on October 26, 2001, at 2:15:37
> I would expect [Manerix] to be ok to be
> discussed.> people would be interested in their
> experience [with Reboxetine].Just to reiterate, discussing medications and experiences is fine...
Bob
Posted by wendy b. on November 8, 2001, at 11:16:46
In reply to Re: time to set a policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2001, at 23:17:26
> > There really is a very simple answer to all of this.
> >
> > I'm hoping you come up with it on your own.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Why, would it have been cheating if you had just told me?
>
> > To me this has been disucssed enough and it is now time for you, Dr Bob, to set a policy as this is your board. Then we can all move on to the real issue of support.
> >
> > james
>
> I did want to see if I was missing the crux of the issue... Well, as you've probably guessed, I would in fact like to draw a new line:
>
> Please do not use this site to exchange information on how to import into the US (1) prescription medication without a prescription or (2) medication that hasn't been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Both activities appear to be illegal. It's fine to discuss here the pros and cons of the medications, just not how to obtain them in those ways. In fact, this site should not be used to facilitate any illegal activities.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#illegal
>
> Thanks, everyone, for all your input on this. It may not be the result you wanted, but I do think it's in the best interest of this community as a whole.
>
> Bob
Bob,While I'm not sure I agree with the new policy you have been enforcing re: mentioning URLs for obtaining meds - (I've never done it, and probably never would, I'm afraid of the law and the FDA and US Customs), I have a question. I could probably answer it for myself by doing some random checking, but have you now gone back and erased every reference on the archives to foreign pharmacies, and other kinds of URLs which sell unapproved drugs?
Just interested,
Wendy
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.