-
- Member
Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:57 pm
I'm just looking for a little advice and I don't know where else to turn. Does anyone know if a patient has the right to question a prescription if the risks seem to outweigh the benefits?
My dad is 85 and has suffered with mobility problems for the last 20 years without a definitive diagnosis. He has ulcers on both heels and on one toe on each foot. He was recently in hospital with an infection in one foot but responded well to antibiotics. He was discharged with Clindamycin antibiotics and these wounds have really improved. I change the 4 silver dressings every 24 hours as we had issues with community nurses not turning up. The antibiotics are finished but there is an infection in the other foot now.
The doctor has prescribed Ciprofloxacin which is a much stronger antibiotic with known risks and side effects especially in the elderly. My dad was only discharged from hospital when I could prove that I could assist him to transfer from bed to wheelchair. I queried the choice of antibiotics because he has background heart failure, kidney problems, a history of high blood pressure which are all stated on the Ciprofloxacin leaflet, NHS website and in the NICE guidelines as being reasons for not taking this medicine. However the main issues for him are that he has a stoma bag and the side effect of diarrhoea is difficult to manage. Also there is a possibility of tendon damage which means the little mobility he does have would be gone and I wouldn't have the strength to be able to lift him from bed to chair. As he already has an erratic heartbeat, shortness of breath, pain and swelling in his joints which are some of the side effects, I asked the doctor how we would know if he was having a bad reaction? In reply I was told that being unconscious would be a sign. Obviously I would like to know before dad got to that point.
When I told the GP that we were worried that the risks outweigh the benefits I felt that my concerns were not being listened to and it was a case of do as your 'betters' tell you. I don't understand why the treatment that worked so well on the other foot can't be repeated? He was not even given this strong antibiotic when he was admitted to hospital.
My question is, does my dad have the right to ask for a less risky treatment where his quality of life is considered too? If he was very ill with the infection I would understand the need for such a strong prescription but he is not. I told the doctor that dad had chosen not to take Ciprofloxacin after reading the advice but the doctor said she would only continue to monitor his condition rather than prescribe something else. It feels like treatment is being withdrawn because he is questioning her choice of prescription. There are other less risky antibiotics for someone with his comorbidities but the doctor doesn't seem to want to consider these.
Has anyone had a similar experience or could offer any advice please?
My dad is 85 and has suffered with mobility problems for the last 20 years without a definitive diagnosis. He has ulcers on both heels and on one toe on each foot. He was recently in hospital with an infection in one foot but responded well to antibiotics. He was discharged with Clindamycin antibiotics and these wounds have really improved. I change the 4 silver dressings every 24 hours as we had issues with community nurses not turning up. The antibiotics are finished but there is an infection in the other foot now.
The doctor has prescribed Ciprofloxacin which is a much stronger antibiotic with known risks and side effects especially in the elderly. My dad was only discharged from hospital when I could prove that I could assist him to transfer from bed to wheelchair. I queried the choice of antibiotics because he has background heart failure, kidney problems, a history of high blood pressure which are all stated on the Ciprofloxacin leaflet, NHS website and in the NICE guidelines as being reasons for not taking this medicine. However the main issues for him are that he has a stoma bag and the side effect of diarrhoea is difficult to manage. Also there is a possibility of tendon damage which means the little mobility he does have would be gone and I wouldn't have the strength to be able to lift him from bed to chair. As he already has an erratic heartbeat, shortness of breath, pain and swelling in his joints which are some of the side effects, I asked the doctor how we would know if he was having a bad reaction? In reply I was told that being unconscious would be a sign. Obviously I would like to know before dad got to that point.
When I told the GP that we were worried that the risks outweigh the benefits I felt that my concerns were not being listened to and it was a case of do as your 'betters' tell you. I don't understand why the treatment that worked so well on the other foot can't be repeated? He was not even given this strong antibiotic when he was admitted to hospital.
My question is, does my dad have the right to ask for a less risky treatment where his quality of life is considered too? If he was very ill with the infection I would understand the need for such a strong prescription but he is not. I told the doctor that dad had chosen not to take Ciprofloxacin after reading the advice but the doctor said she would only continue to monitor his condition rather than prescribe something else. It feels like treatment is being withdrawn because he is questioning her choice of prescription. There are other less risky antibiotics for someone with his comorbidities but the doctor doesn't seem to want to consider these.
Has anyone had a similar experience or could offer any advice please?
