Antibiotic dependence, are we sealing our doom?
With antibiotics in such widespread use the risk of germs becoming resistant increases. With such areas as farming this can ruin an industry as animals are constantly given broad spectrum antibiotics to keep them free of disease.
A more worrying occurance with Human antibiotic use is the emergance of a new strain of the common germ Staphylococcus Aureus (SA). These new Methicillin resistant (MRSA) and Vancomycin resistant (VRSA, Vancomycin is a very powerful antibiotic) strains are only a threat when the immune system is depressed as SA is always present in our nose and throats. If infected, however, MRSA and VRSA often prove fatal and require the use of more powerful antibiotics, previously reserved as a last line of defence. I recently spoke to a doctor about the threat of MRSA and VRSA. Whilst he acknowledged that it can be a killer he didn't seem particularly worried about the dangers of it as it is only a danger to those with a weak immune system, the very young, old or ill. If SA can develop antibiotic resistance then there is a possibility that other more virulent germs can also. Shouldn't governments have more policies to curb antibiotic use? Should doctors be told to be more arbitrary in perscribing antibiotics? The doctor I spoke to said he wasn't changing his policy. What threat do the rest of you think this poses? What should we do to prevent it, aside from always finishing a course of antibiotics. Are we doomed to eventually be overtaken by more rapidly evolving diseases?
[ 08-30-2002: Message edited by: Vargas ]</p>
A more worrying occurance with Human antibiotic use is the emergance of a new strain of the common germ Staphylococcus Aureus (SA). These new Methicillin resistant (MRSA) and Vancomycin resistant (VRSA, Vancomycin is a very powerful antibiotic) strains are only a threat when the immune system is depressed as SA is always present in our nose and throats. If infected, however, MRSA and VRSA often prove fatal and require the use of more powerful antibiotics, previously reserved as a last line of defence. I recently spoke to a doctor about the threat of MRSA and VRSA. Whilst he acknowledged that it can be a killer he didn't seem particularly worried about the dangers of it as it is only a danger to those with a weak immune system, the very young, old or ill. If SA can develop antibiotic resistance then there is a possibility that other more virulent germs can also. Shouldn't governments have more policies to curb antibiotic use? Should doctors be told to be more arbitrary in perscribing antibiotics? The doctor I spoke to said he wasn't changing his policy. What threat do the rest of you think this poses? What should we do to prevent it, aside from always finishing a course of antibiotics. Are we doomed to eventually be overtaken by more rapidly evolving diseases?
[ 08-30-2002: Message edited by: Vargas ]</p>
Comments
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/750010.asp"; target="_blank">Drug resistant germs on the rise</a>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/749303.asp"; target="_blank">A genetic map to new antibiotics</a>
Staphylococcus Aureus
Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)
of course finish full course antibiotics and don't get antibiotics if you don't need them. only get them if you have an infection, green or yellow crud in your nose and/or lungs. not sure how you tell if you have an ear infection..I'm sure new antibiotcs are being developed as we speak. i know people who have experimental drugs used on them that had to be OK'd by the CDC., some real hardcore stuff. these people were immuned suppressed due to organ transplant
i think i've heard doctors are prescribing antibiotics less these days
Try not letting junior wear short sleaves in 30 degree weather, mom.
Ugghh.
I can always tell as I often develop an ear infection if I get a cold. The incredible amount of pain I feel behind my eardrum usually tells me somethings wrong. That may be why we use so many antibiotics these days, we aren't willing to endure the pain of waiting for our own immune systems to kick in so we turn to drugs to get rid of the source of the pain quicker. To anybody enduring an ear infection this ALWAYS makes sense.
<strong>not sure how you tell if you have an ear infection...
I can always tell as I often develop an ear infection if I get a cold. The incredible amount of pain I feel behind my eardrum usually tells me somethings wrong. That may be why we use so many antibiotics these days, we aren't willing to endure the pain of waiting for our own immune systems to kick in so we turn to drugs to get rid of the source of the pain quicker. To anybody enduring an ear infection this ALWAYS makes sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>The key is whether the ear infection is caused by virus or baceria. I really don't think there's any way to tell for sure which one caused the infection. If it lasts a long time, and it causes lots of distress, then antibiotics are given.
And I have to wonder about these anti-bacterial hand soaps that you see all the time. I'm sure there's next to nothing in them, but isn't more of these antibiotics floating around really the last thing we need?
It's like there is a Stupid Housewife Society that incessantly strives to find new ways for said women to be self-absorbed to the point where it is life-threatening for the rest of the world.
(See also: Stupid Housewives, Soccer Moms, Driving)
<strong>Stupid housewives who cannot comprehend that there isn't a pill for every single posssible malady that could affect someone in their family, and the pushover doctors who blindly write perscriptions for them will seal our fate.
It's like there is a Stupid Housewife Society that incessantly strives to find new ways for said women to be self-absorbed to the point where it is life-threatening for the rest of the world.
(See also: Stupid Housewives, Soccer Moms, Driving)</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> yer right
- SA is not automatically present in our throat and in your nose : only in 25 % of the case.
- Giving antibiotics for animal growht is a huge problems, breeders are not ready to stop this practice because antibiotics let them win more money : but it is a very bad practice.
- many doctors give antibiotics because, patients wants antibiotics (not every patients, but too many of them : my wife is a general practicionner and she tell me this many times) .
- It's important to finish the treatment and not stop it before the end : take 4 days of antiobiotics rather than 7 because you are cure is bad : it let develop resistances. (as someone said it here)
- many infections with bacterias have to be cure like angina (not the viral one, but the bacterial one : there is a test to know if it's viral or bacterial which should be practiced sistematically). Anginas could lead to rhumatismal diseases and severe heart diseases. Giving antibiotics do not diminish the immune systems in an important way : perfect hygiena dimish the immune system : but who is ready to become dirty just to improve his immune system.
Giving antibiotics for viral diseases is wrong and should be avoided.
Some doctors, give sometimes antibiotics (me included) because of lawsuits : if there is an infection after surgery : i am responsible and guilty, i prefer sometimes to let develop a resistance rather to be sued and automatically lose in case of post operative infection (in the french law the surgeon is always responsible of a post operative infection even if he proove that he have done a perfect job).
- there will be always a competition between scientifical research to find new antibiotics and resistances.
<strong>- there will be always a competition between scientifical research to find new antibiotics and resistances.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A problem could be that in order to make it fair for companies who spend millions in research and development for new drugs there is a law that states that after developing a new drug the company has the sole rights to produce it for a certain number of years. This is bad for the rest of the people as it reduces competition. A balance must be made as if companies don't have patent security for enough years to make back their costs they won't bother making new cure but if there is too long a patent time then there won't be much competition and costs of new drugs will be high, making it unfair to some people. The trick will be findingn the correct balance between incentives and things to spark more competition. Subsidies for producing new cures could be one as firms will then want to produce new drugs as they will make more profit and less patent time will be needed as R and D costs can be cleared quicker. There can also be competition between firms for subsidies, possibly increasing the number of new cures developed.
<strong>
A problem could be that in order to make it fair for companies who spend millions in research and development for new drugs there is a law that states that after developing a new drug the company has the sole rights to produce it for a certain number of years. This is bad for the rest of the people as it reduces competition. A balance must be made as if companies don't have patent security for enough years to make back their costs they won't bother making new cure but if there is too long a patent time then there won't be much competition and costs of new drugs will be high, making it unfair to some people. The trick will be findingn the correct balance between incentives and things to spark more competition. Subsidies for producing new cures could be one as firms will then want to produce new drugs as they will make more profit and less patent time will be needed as R and D costs can be cleared quicker. There can also be competition between firms for subsidies, possibly increasing the number of new cures developed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The patents politic do not reduce competition between differents drugs corps, it just made the prize of drugs higher. It's incredible the number of new drugs introduced in the market each years. I am not an old doc, but there is many new drugs that i do not know, and i have to watch my drugs dictionnary very often.
so for me the actual politic of patents do not lead to a less diversity of drugs but to higher prize (see the problems with aids). And i agree with your analysis : short patent do not permit lab to make profit, long patent are bad for patients (expansive prizes for a long time).
<strong>So you agree that a suitable balance must be achieved. What is your view on the use of subsidies?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is legal subsidies : no problems with them.
if you are refering to aids, there is problems ,the politic of pattern show is limit here. Africa is too poor to buy expansive products and 40 millions peoples are affected by aids. In this case subsidaries are good even if non legal and protected by pattern; Anyways big products company win enough money with the aids therapy, and africans will never been reals customers : they are too poor : so they don't loose money with subsidaries.
concerning antibiotics i don't think that many antibiotics are affected by resistances in Africa due to the less use of these products. So there is less need for the latest generation of antibiotics in these countries : the current antibiotics are sufficiently efficient (very few resistances);
When I return to college next week after my summer break I will be starting a piece of economics coursework on the economic impact of antibiotic resistance. This thread is part of my research so any info or links that can be posted here would be of great help, thanks.
P.S thanks for the 2 links Stroszek.