Prescription: Fill & Download for Free

Wow! This is so ridiculous that people may not believe it. I myself will never forget it! It is etched in my memory for life. This happened in 2009.I was floating into a store and the husband of a patient brought in a prescription for Methadone 10mg. It was written for 1600 tablets!!! The instructions read: Take 15 to 20 tablets by mouth three to four times a day as needed for back pain. I asked the tech/intern at the store if it is a normal prescription for the patient? It was! The patient had been getting the same prescription for two years!I knew the doctor who prescribed it, he always prescribed beyond the realm of reality. I used to cringe whenever I saw prescriptions from this particular doctor. I called up my mom who was a practicing pharmacist at the time, and asked her if she had ever seen anything like the prescription before?! My mom thought I was pulling her leg. I told her it is a legitimate prescription. Her first sentence was “You cannot fill that, it isn't safe".I didn't fill it. I did hear a mouthful from the patient who said she had been getting the same dose and quantity for the past two years. I told her I was not going to fill it and risk my license. After yelling and bitching, she decided to come back when the regular pharmacist was in.The doctor did lose his license to practice about four years after that incident. I cannot imagine it happening today with the opioid epidemic that is all over our country.Edit: Please don't send me messages telling me you have heard of that high a dose… You have not. It may be 200mg or a bit higher ONCE a day.Note directions:15 to 20 Tablets 3 to 4 times a day. That would be: 150mg to 200mg THREE to FOUR times a day.

Firstly, in England (only) prescriptions cost about £9.50, unless your income is below a certain level (or you’re retired, a child or have certain pre-existing conditions). But you can get a prescription pass which covers you for a whole year, and costs about £110.Secondly, if your cough is bad you could get a prescription for linctus, either from your GP or direct from a pharmacist. But it would be considered a bit “cheap” to expect the NHS to pay for an over-the-counter medicine which only costs about £2 anyway, unless you are very poor - and in England, of course, if you don’t have a prescription pass it would be pointless to pay £9.50 for a prescription for something that costs £2 over the counter.I should point out that one of the interesting side effects of having the NHS is that over-the-counter medicines cost about a fifth of what they do in the US, because the companies that make them know that if they charge too much, you’ll just go to your GP for a prescription anyway. So they price them as low as they can and still make slightly more than they do on selling in bulk to the NHS.

This appears to be one of those times when good intentions come into conflict with common sense. The Kentucky state board governing eye doctors says that the practice of the church matching up used eyeglasses with people violates its guidelines, which state that eyeglasses dispensed must exactly meet the prescription requirements of the person receiving the glasses. The church matches people up with glasses when the person’s prescription requirements are close enough to that of the glasses to improve their vision, despite not being an exact match, when there is no exact match available in their supply. They had even developed a software program to effectuate this match-up. People were able to enjoy improved vision, despite the prescription not being an exact match.So now the State is in the stupid position of contending that, if people can’t afford to get prescription glasses from their eye doctor, they can’t have any glasses at all. Or rather, no one is allowed to provide glasses to them that don’t meet the guidelines. It remains to be seen whether the State will arrest people in possession of glasses not meeting their prescription, since won’t they be contraband?Of course you want eye doctors to only dispense eyeglasses that meet the patient’s exact prescription requirements. But of course, giving secondhand glasses to homeless people is not the same thing, unless the Board seriously fears an onslaught of complaints and lawsuits from homeless people alleging damages they didn’t suffer as a result of being able to see better, and demanding the Board do something? Why does this even need to become an issue? Because of lawyers with too much time on their hands?I have a solution. The church should prepare a release for the homeless to sign upon receiving their glasses, stating they are aware that the glasses may not meet their exact prescription requirements, but are accepting them based on the fact that they are able to enjoy improved vision while wearing them, and thus no liability should attach to those providing the glasses, who shall be “held harmless” now and in the future, etc etc. You would think this could just go without saying, but apparently not always.