Columns

Since I know almost nothing about biochemistry and am not a doctor or pharmacist, I could not reliably tell you the specific combinations of pharmaceuticals, and/or alcohol that can cause sudden death. However, I have learned to some small extent about the scenarios in which this can happen, because I've looked at mass media news outlets with their stories about famous people who have died, and because I personally knew one or two individuals to whom this happened. Pharmaceutical errors are in some cases failures of the pharmacies, and in other cases, it is hard to pinpoint who is responsible. 

In some cases, I am guessing that there are downsides to HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a 1996 Federal law, which restricts access to peoples' private medical information. The acronym seems to invoke fear in doctors and other practitioners, almost automatically. 

One pharmacy doesn't necessarily know what a different pharmacy is prescribing to a person. One physician or practitioner can't necessarily share vital information with other doctors or individuals unless the patient has signed a release.  

I've been in meetings with practitioners who tried to get me to sign blank releases of information. Maybe they are trying to outmaneuver HIPAA, either for my own good, for their convenience, or, for some other reason. 

The exceptions to HIPAA include situations in which a person is being harmed or in which a threat is made. Treatment practitioners can get past HIPAA through a release of information signed by the patient. Usually, these releases are for specific, valid purposes. 

In modern times, one would think there would be a central database that monitors people's prescriptions, so that pharmacy A would know what had been prescribed by pharmacy B, and vice versa. And you would think that an automated system would notify pharmacy staff of a potential conflict in prescriptions. However, from what I have seen, pharmacists do not necessarily know when there is a potentially deadly or injurious conflict in prescriptions. 

We apparently do not have a central computer system that knows everyone's prescriptions. Having such a thing could be Orwellian, because it could be misused by people in power and by others. 

Should the physician or psychiatrist be the responsible one? Does the buck stop there? Unfortunately, in modern times doctors are spending all of their time dealing with the mountains of administrative tasks that allow them to be paid and to remain out of trouble. 

Actually, it is the patient, and this includes psychiatric patients, who ultimately should take responsibility for our prescriptions, so that we are not killed, or permanently damaged, by taking a bad combination of medications, or by a single medication. 

In order to accomplish that, the patient should do research on the internet concerning the medications and other treatment that we are getting. Additionally, we should accept the offer from a pharmacy for a consult with the pharmacist, when getting a new medication.  

No one can predict the future. You do not know in advance how a medication or combination of meds will affect you. My policy is to not take any prescriptions for anything that hasn't been around for at least ten years. The FDA doesn't do an adequate job of screening new medications. Patients often find out years later that something is wrong with what they've been taking. 

If taking any psychiatric drugs, alcohol should be avoided completely. Also, a psychiatrist told me (about 30 years ago) that marijuana does not mix well with antipsychotics.;