to think that I shouldn't have to swallow my principles to save the NHS money?

[Tollund]

I was seen by a practice nurse this morning and prescribed antibiotics for my chest infection. When he wrote the prescription I said that if they were capsules with gelatine in them I couldn't take them and would need the medicine instead. He told me that he didn't know if they did or not and didn't have time to research it, and if I really couldn't bring myself to take them I'd have to ask the pharmacist what they would recommend. I've been here before so I said that they wouldn't prescribe anything and I'd end up having to come back to pick up yet another prescription. He said to go and see what they said but he wouldn't prescribe the medicine as it was more expensive. (I'm guessing he doesn't see a lot of Hindus and not sure how far he'd get suggesting that people should take things containing boiled up connective tissue and bones whether they've spent a lifetime avoiding them or not.)

So I went to the pharmacist and exactly what I had said would happen, happened and I've wasted over an hour trying to get them to liaise amongst themselves so I didn't physically need to run between the surgery and chemist to pick up prescriptions myself. (With a chest infection when it's -2!)

AIBU to think that the practice nurse was being a total arse and that I shouldn't be made to run around wasting time because he "was too busy" and clearly thought I was being stupid for not just taking the gelatine?

[madmouse]

I think YABU. I sympathise with your principles, but we have a limited amount of money going round on the NHS and if you want something that is significantly more expensive for a non-medical reason you should not feel you are entitled to it for free.

It is medication which you need to get well which in my view exempts it from any religious discussion as taking it should not be held against you.

[FelicityWasSanta]

But madmouse- the price difference in this case is less than 30p and the OP pays the prescription charge which is significantly higher than the cost of the drug.

[PumpkinPositive]

I don't see why the OP should have to accept medication containing animal products any more than I think a veggie/Hindu should have to eat meat during a hospital stay or a black person should have to wear a white prosthetic limb.

[PumpkinPositive]

But madmouse- the price difference in this case is less than 30p and the OP pays the prescription charge which is significantly higher than the cost of the drug.

Plus there's unlikely to be a stampede by the rest of the population for the fractionally more expensive gelatine free medication.

[squeakytoy]

But it is a miniscule amount of animal by-product. And it is incomparable to the doctor suggesting the OP go away and eat a few lamb chops or saying that muslims in hospital should have no choice but to eat pork dishes.

During the course of our lifetime we will have eaten quite a few bugs and flies, probably more animal product there than in a few anti-biotics.

[TheCraicDealer]

It may only have been 30p in this instance, but where do you draw the line once the precedence has been set? £30? £3000? And that's before you look into the implications of keeping higher levels of one drug available as opposed to another option, which may have a longer shelf life and reduce wastage.

[freddiefrog]

YABU

I do understand where you're coming from but I think you need your own money where your mouth

The NHS doesn't have an endless pot of money, they provide the most suitable medication that does the best job for the least amount of money

[FelicityWasSanta]

It may only have been 30p in this instance, but where do you draw the line once the precedence has been set? £30? £3000? And that's before you look into the implications of keeping higher levels of one drug available as opposed to another option, which may have a longer shelf life and reduce wastage.

Where to draw a line is an interesting argument. Possibly one best had by HCPs and not us!

If the cost was prohibitive then steps should be taken to alleviate the burden on the NHS - perhaps part payment could be considered.

However treating the OPs concerns as unimportant, trivial or a waste of time are not the way to deal with these issues.

And in this case the liquid form is routinely kept for children. So it's not too much of a stretch to extend that to vegetarians as well.

[madmouse]

I do not accept that it is the same as suggestions that she should eat meat in hospital. This is a precision prepared medical product that is not taken by choice or to eat while there are easy alternatives available. You should only be prescribes ABs if you have an infection that will not get better by itself. And therefore the ABs are necessary, not at all the same as a choice between chickpeas and lamb chops.

And indeed Craig where does one draw the line. My newborn ds had special alcohol free anti convulsants prescribed after I worked out aghast that the meds they were giving him contained as much alcohol as a half pint of beer A DAY. They agreed it was bad for his liver and his already damaged brain. The cost? £175 a WEEK (normal meds £30 a month) and that is 5 years ago. Thankfully only for 4 months. It can be done, if needed, but we simply cannot afford to give everyone a choice and I believe alternatives should only be offered on a medical need basis. I would not have expected alcohol free meds on a religious basis (and I am very religious).

[CatPussRoastingOnAnOpenFire]

Say there are 4 million veggies in this country. If they all, just once a year, asked for 30p more expensive meds, that's over a million pounds that the NHS could spend elsewhere. Combine the veggies with the people with religious viewpoints to consider, and any other non medical viewpoint come to that, and those whose requested meds cost more that 30pence extra, then this small issue could cost the health service a LOT of money. Where DO you draw the line?

[LeBFG]

Having a meal choice in hosptial is important because people frequently undereat at hospital. Patients are encouraged to eat as much as they are given and not waste meals. So it seems sensible and cost-saving to provide meat-free alternatives.

Eating medication is clearly not comparable. We don't gain anything significantly nutritive from the pills we take.

Should the NHS be providing alternatives to those with religeous objections? My instinct is to say no as I'm pretty anti-religion to be frank. Though I appreciate that many, even a majority, would say yes this is acceptable. Is this the same as allowing for ethical choices? Not in the book of most people. People's ethics and religion do not carry the same weight. Religious brigade would have us believe they have no choice - it's their religion, they have to follow it. I think it's this distain for OP's ethical choice that explains the nurse's behaviour.

My opinion (fwiw) is that OP is BU because she is a hypocrite. If animal rights were so important to her as the gelatin incident seems to imply, she shouldn't be taking antibiotics. Perhaps one day all capsules will be made veggie - I don't care really. I think you accept the bog-standard, what's available now and swallow quickly (this is not the same as wearing a prosthetic leg of the wrong colour btw - how silly to trivalise one by comparing with the other!).

[FelicityWasSanta]

If the 4million veggies did demand this medication one would assume that the NHS order with the drug company would go up to the extent that a better deal could be negotiated and the cost of the medication would go down.

[CatPussRoastingOnAnOpenFire]

I never said "this medication" I said "30pence more expensive meds" actually!

[RedToothbrush]

If its an issue of cost, then there needs to be options to allow people to choose though still. The NHS dominates things so much, it acts as a barrier to allow people to 'top up' if they want. As things stand the OP wasn't told that the drug was not veggie friendly. She wasn't told anything because of arsey nurse. And if the NHS can't afford something then people should be told the real reasons why, not phobed of so that they can make a decision to seek a viable alternative elsewhere if they want.

In terms of cost, there are a lot of drugs which maybe suitable for a particular use. I do think its fine to prescribe the cheapest one if its the most cost effective one. But cost effective is a funny little phrase. Cost effective can mean using a drug that costs more but has fewer side effects or is less likely to taken incorrectly. NICE will generally approve the cost effectiveness of a drug based on a wide range of factors, not just the price tag.

And as I mentioned upthread, if giving anti-biotics to an unhappy veggie means they are less likely to complete the course then perhaps its not actually the most cost effective treatment.

[PumpkinPositive]

this is not the same as wearing a prosthetic leg of the wrong colour btw - how silly to trivalise one by comparing with the other!).

Why? People were saying the OP should accept standard issue medication and to pay for the meds herself if she was unwilling to accept standard issue. I recall the very same argument was put forward to justify giving standard issue prosthetics on the NHS irrespective of the patients ethnicity. Management within the health service were using the very same arguments viz a viz the prosthetics that are being applied here.

[Kalisi]

Ethnicity is not a choice. For that analogy to be fair, the standard issue prosthetic limbs should have been green or something and NOT in favour of white skin colour, therefore discriminating against other ethnicitys. Two very different ethical scenarios.

[LeBFG]

Doesn't matter if the argument was the same Pumkin. Wearing something visibly ridiculous that impacts on self-confidence, self-esteem and a host of things aside means people were perfectly entitled to refuse standard issue (and the powers-that-be, totally ridiculous for suggesting they had to just accept it). Not wanting to ingest a few milligrams of gelatin is not even in the same league - they are so different you can't compare them.

[madmouse]

I'm with LBFG on this one

(and that's rare!)

[FelicityWasSanta]

I agree redtoothbrush

And I would go as far as to say the people that don't agree are coming across as very disrespectful towards vegetarians and their choices.

[PumpkinPositive]

Ethnicity is not a choice. For that analogy to be fair, the standard issue prosthetic limbs should have been green or something and NOT in favour of white skin colour, therefore discriminating against other ethnicitys. Two very different ethical scenarios.

Ethnicity is not a choice, the choice lay in whether or not to wear the prosthetic. Ethnic minority amputees felt (rightly) they should not have to use something that was going to flag up fairly quickly they were an amputee. NHS policy apparently was "tough cheese, this is how prosthetics are standardly manufactured, we're not going to make accommodations for anyone. Take it or leave it." Technically they were right, BMEs could have worn the white prosthetics. But was it reasonable to expect this? (No)

I think the policy changed in the end. Obviously they are not directly comparable because one involves ethnicity and the other ethics/religious belief. My point was that the NHS doesn't expect patients to just suck it up and accept standard issue in all cases. It makes accommodations in the case of prosthetics (due to something the patient has no choice in, their ethnicity) and vegetarian dietary requirements (something the patient does have a choice in).

As such, and particularly in the case of hospital food, if the NHS is prepared to accommodate patients in this way, I think OP has a case for gelatine free meds.

[LeBFG]

I think the thing that grates is most people want things personalised. Medical courses that suit one and one's lifestyle. But unless we go private, we just have to take what we're given. I think people object to people demanding a choice just because.

I eat meat but not beef so I don't want the pills made with beef gelatin....I find the flavour a bit sickening, I want it in chocolate....I'm on a caffeine cut-down, I want ones without caffeine....

These sorts of things seem so trivial (esp when compared to real health issues) that when some sub-groups try and get their way it can grate on the rest of us, even if in theory it would be relatively easy to provide for.

[madmouse]

Really Felicity?

[PumpkinPositive]

Wearing something visibly ridiculous that impacts on self-confidence, self-esteem and a host of things aside means people were perfectly entitled to refuse standard issue (and the powers-that-be, totally ridiculous for suggesting they had to just accept it)

Agreed. But many vegetarians (whether for religious or ethical reasons) are so strongly opposed to meat eating that ingesting something containing even minuscule particles of animal product could conceivably have a profound impact on their self esteem and well being.

If you are of the view that meat is murder, that eating an animal is just as bad as eating a human being, I suspect the amount of animal trace in the product will be academic.

[KenLeeeeeeeInnaSantaHat]

Ok, firstly I hate this idea that the NHS is "free". It isn't free, we all pay for it through taxes and NI contributions. That NHS provides a framework for everyone to receive the appropriate treatment for their condition - and that ought to (IMO) encompass religious restriction, moral preferences, intolerances and allergies indiscriminately.

So on that basis, I think YANBU.

[Sirzy]

The NHS is struggling. They in a lot of cases can't afford to prescribe the best course of drugs when it is needed. They certainly can't afford to prescribe different drugs because they may have a tiny amount of gelatine in.

If the op wants a different drug fine, but don't expect the NHS to provide it.