Biopsy?

Larry wrote and asked:

> I'm 51 y/o with history of chronic prostatitis. Just had an increase
> in PSA from 1 to 1.8 over one year. My uro is ordering a biopsy. I
> asked him why not repeat PSA, just in case? He said the labs don't
> make mistakes. Should I push him on this or just accept the biopsy?

That's less than double in one year, and you have a history of other
problems that could have boosted it just at the time the PSA blood
draw was done.

Someone recently wrote that a second PSA in 6 months should be
performed before any biopsy.

He lied to you. Labs do make mistakes.

He lied to you. Do you still trust him enough for a biopsy?

Find a doctor for a second opinion. Your insurance should cover
that if only to avoid a "minor surgery" billing from that onager
who lied to you and wants to rush you into a biopsy.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

Actually, I double-checked it. It went from 1 to 1.6 in 13 months and
then from 1.6 to 1.8 over the next 11 months. I.E. 1 to 1.8 over 24 months.

Larry

Califchief wrote:

> Larry wrote and asked:
>
> > I'm 51 y/o with history of chronic prostatitis. Just had an increase
> > in PSA from 1 to 1.8 over one year. My uro is ordering a biopsy. I
> > asked him why not repeat PSA, just in case? He said the labs don't
> > make mistakes. Should I push him on this or just accept the biopsy?
>
> That's less than double in one year, and you have a history of other
> problems that could have boosted it just at the time the PSA blood
> draw was done.
>
> Someone recently wrote that a second PSA in 6 months should be
> performed before any biopsy.
>
> He lied to you. Labs do make mistakes.
>
> He lied to you. Do you still trust him enough for a biopsy?
>
> Find a doctor for a second opinion. Your insurance should cover
> that if only to avoid a "minor surgery" billing from that onager
> who lied to you and wants to rush you into a biopsy.
>
> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

I will definitely consider it. Thanks!

Califchief wrote:

> Larry wrote and asked:
>
> > I'm 51 y/o with history of chronic prostatitis. Just had an increase
> > in PSA from 1 to 1.8 over one year. My uro is ordering a biopsy. I
> > asked him why not repeat PSA, just in case? He said the labs don't
> > make mistakes. Should I push him on this or just accept the biopsy?
>
> That's less than double in one year, and you have a history of other
> problems that could have boosted it just at the time the PSA blood
> draw was done.
>
> Someone recently wrote that a second PSA in 6 months should be
> performed before any biopsy.
>
> He lied to you. Labs do make mistakes.
>
> He lied to you. Do you still trust him enough for a biopsy?
>
> Find a doctor for a second opinion. Your insurance should cover
> that if only to avoid a "minor surgery" billing from that onager
> who lied to you and wants to rush you into a biopsy.
>
> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

"Califchief" <califchief@fidotel.com> wrote in message
news:1209168168.17.1209142815@fidotel.com...
> ...
> Someone recently wrote that a second PSA in 6 months should be
> performed before any biopsy.

I think there must be times when there is good reason to do a
biopsy right away. If the PSA is relatively high (not true in
this case) or has gone up quickly (seemingly true in this case),
and if there is a very suspicious digital rectal exam
(questionable in this case), I wouldn't want to wait six months.

> He lied to you. Labs do make mistakes.
>
> He lied to you. Do you still trust him enough for a biopsy?

Well ... I'm not sure I want to go so far as to say that the
doctor lied. In the first place, he may believe exactly what he
said. He may have never seen a clear case of a mistake in a PSA
report. He may believe that the odds are so small that they
shouldn't be considered. If he believed that the odds of a
mistake are, say, one in a thousand, do we really want to call
him a liar?

Also, sometimes a doctor (or anyone else) will exaggerate a
statement in order to make a point. Sometimes people do that for
the good of the person they are talking to. For example, when a
doctor says to a patient - "You're going to have a heart attack
if you don't stop smoking and eating like a pig" - is he lying?
Strictly speaking, he should have said, your risk of a heart
attack is increased by N percent. But he might be trying to
motivate this obese smoker by exaggerating the point. Scaring
the patient might be crucial to saving his life.

So I don't want to be too quick to judge.

> Find a doctor for a second opinion. Your insurance should cover
> that ...

Excellent advice.

Alan

Alan,

Very sensible words. I did speak to him again. He feels that the PSA
shouldn't have risen that much over 24 months, but he also feels that
there's a 3 out of 4 chance that it's not PCa. I am going for a 2nd
opinion before I agree to the biopsy. And he insists that his patients
do not complain of pain during biopsy.

Larry
> "Califchief" <califchief@fidotel.com> wrote in message
> news:1209168168.17.1209142815@fidotel.com...
>
>>...
>>Someone recently wrote that a second PSA in 6 months should be
>>performed before any biopsy.
>
>
> I think there must be times when there is good reason to do a
> biopsy right away. If the PSA is relatively high (not true in
> this case) or has gone up quickly (seemingly true in this case),
> and if there is a very suspicious digital rectal exam
> (questionable in this case), I wouldn't want to wait six months.
>
>
>>He lied to you. Labs do make mistakes.
>>
>>He lied to you. Do you still trust him enough for a biopsy?
>
>
> Well ... I'm not sure I want to go so far as to say that the
> doctor lied. In the first place, he may believe exactly what he
> said. He may have never seen a clear case of a mistake in a PSA
> report. He may believe that the odds are so small that they
> shouldn't be considered. If he believed that the odds of a
> mistake are, say, one in a thousand, do we really want to call
> him a liar?
>
> Also, sometimes a doctor (or anyone else) will exaggerate a
> statement in order to make a point. Sometimes people do that for
> the good of the person they are talking to. For example, when a
> doctor says to a patient - "You're going to have a heart attack
> if you don't stop smoking and eating like a pig" - is he lying?
> Strictly speaking, he should have said, your risk of a heart
> attack is increased by N percent. But he might be trying to
> motivate this obese smoker by exaggerating the point. Scaring
> the patient might be crucial to saving his life.
>
> So I don't want to be too quick to judge.
>
>
>>Find a doctor for a second opinion. Your insurance should cover
>>that ...
>
>
> Excellent advice.
>
> Alan
>
>

On April 29, Alan Meyer wrote, in pertinent part:

(snip)

Quoting El Jefe de California:

>> He lied to you. Labs do make mistakes.
>>
>> He lied to you. Do you still trust him enough for a biopsy?
>
> Well ... I'm not sure I want to go so far as to say that the
> doctor lied. In the first place, he may believe exactly what he
> said. He may have never seen a clear case of a mistake in a PSA
> report. He may believe that the odds are so small that they
> shouldn't be considered. If he believed that the odds of a
> mistake are, say, one in a thousand, do we really want to call
> him a liar?

Only if he knew the truth and elected not to tell it.

BUT: to make the unequivocal statement that labs *never make mistakes*
is simply false, whatever the medic believed.

So the medic may have believed that he was telling the truth,
notwithstanding the facts. think about what this suggests about his
knowledge of medical science.

> Also, sometimes a doctor (or anyone else) will exaggerate a
> statement in order to make a point. Sometimes people do that for
> the good of the person they are talking to.

I am sorry to say that such a thing is reprehensible. I say give the
patient the facts, explain them, await his decision. To mislead him "for
his own good" is elitist.

> For example, when a
> doctor says to a patient - "You're going to have a heart attack
> if you don't stop smoking and eating like a pig" - is he lying?

Not necessarily, if and only if that is a fact. And I am an example of
the fact that he is not factual.

> Strictly speaking, he should have said, your risk of a heart
> attack is increased by N percent. But he might be trying to
> motivate this obese smoker by exaggerating the point. Scaring
> the patient might be crucial to saving his life.

Given the facts, it is in the patient's *sole discretion* how to respond
to those facts.

Regards,

Steve J

"...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or
collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their
number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against
his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or
moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to
do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it
will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would
be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for
which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the
part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right,
absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is
sovereign."
-John Stuart Mill


>
> So I don't want to be too quick to judge.
>
>> Find a doctor for a second opinion. Your insurance should cover
>> that ...
>
> Excellent advice.
>
> Alan
>
>

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fv88n1$ig8$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>> He lied to you. Labs do make mistakes.
>
> Well ... I'm not sure I want to go so far as to say that the
> doctor lied. In the first place, he may believe exactly what he
> said. He may have never seen a clear case of a mistake in a PSA
> report. He may believe that the odds are so small that they
> shouldn't be considered.

I highly doubt that his doctor, any doctor, is batting 1.000 with labs. And
while it is a strong perjorative, if it's not the truth (or an honest
perception), then it's a lie. I thought the same of my doc when I found out
that his 1 in 3 chances almost always translated to 2 in 3 chances and
sometimes worse.

It might be a "white" lie, or one with good intentions, but labs make
mistakes. You and I have seen it with only 800 or so patients coming across
our NG path. If us, then surely his doctor.

Never the less, I agree with his doctor's prognosis and advice.

>> Find a doctor for a second opinion. Your insurance should cover
>> that ...
>
> Excellent advice.

Let me second that emotion.

--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"Larry" <larry@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4817aea6$0$25047$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Alan,
>
> Very sensible words. I did speak to him again. He feels that the PSA
> shouldn't have risen that much over 24 months, but he also feels that
> there's a 3 out of 4 chance that it's not PCa. I am going for a 2nd
> opinion before I agree to the biopsy. And he insists that his patients do
> not complain of pain during biopsy.

There is absolutely no reason to have pain. Tell him to give you the happy
juice. You may have pain, but you'll never remember it.

Steve Kramer wrote:

> There is absolutely no reason to have pain. Tell him to give you the happy
> juice. You may have pain, but you'll never remember it.

Once again, however, since it's been a while, let me remind readers that
anesthesia has pitfalls. The certain one is that one cannot legally
drive for the rest of the day. Less distinct but common is reduced
mental capacity, which matters if one needs a clear head; we FEEL fine
after modern happy juice wears off, but then "feeling fine" is its
*purpose*, isn't it? Then there are the rarer but much more serious
incidences of lingering confusion lasting days to months. The UK cited
those when banning systemic drugs such as laughing gas for minor dental
work.

Personally, I'm not generally willing to sacrifice a day of constraints
on my mental or physical acuity just to escape a little fleeting
irritation like a prostate biopsy or a bigger but even more fleeting
irritation like a colonoscopy. But then I don't drink alcohol partly for
the same reason, so maybe my priorities are not mainstream.

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:z36Sj.787$sC6.36@newsfe07.lga...

> Personally, I'm not generally willing to sacrifice a day of constraints on
> my mental or physical acuity just to escape a little fleeting irritation
> like a prostate biopsy or a bigger but even more fleeting irritation like
> a colonoscopy.

I would concur that I am not generally willing to sacrifice a day of
constraints on my mental or physical acuity just to escape a little fleeting
irritation. However, prostate biopsies cause some men fleeting irritations
and other horrendous pain. The rest fall in between.

I will sacrifice a little wooziness (it was nowhere near a day) to assure
I'm not one of those in the horrendous category.


--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

On April 30, Steve Kramer replied to Mike:

> I would concur that I am not generally willing to sacrifice a day of
> constraints on my mental or physical acuity just to escape a little fleeting
> irritation. However, prostate biopsies cause some men fleeting irritations
> and other horrendous pain. The rest fall in between.
>
> I will sacrifice a little wooziness (it was nowhere near a day) to assure
> I'm not one of those in the horrendous category.

Well, Steve K, I think we all understand that Mike advises everyone,
regardless of individual differences. Everyone is the same: subject to
his horrors.

Regards,

Steve J

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:06:22 -0700, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>Steve Kramer wrote:
>
>> There is absolutely no reason to have pain. Tell him to give you the happy
>> juice. You may have pain, but you'll never remember it.
>
>Once again, however, since it's been a while, let me remind readers that
>anesthesia has pitfalls. The certain one is that one cannot legally
>drive for the rest of the day. Less distinct but common is reduced
>
>I.P.


I.P., after having the biopsy done, and peeing blood, how much driving
would you want to do, and to where? Get someone to drive you home and
take it easy!

And, on the topic of a colonoscopy without anesthesia, if you prefer
to tough that out, you're welcome to it. A sigmoidoscopy is one
thing, but a colonoscopy without anesthesia???? BS!

Burney
RP in 1995 (age 52)
RT in 2000
ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07
Latest PSA - 0.18

Steve Kramer wrote:

> I will sacrifice a little wooziness (it was nowhere near a day) to assure
> I'm not one of those in the horrendous category.

Woozy isn't the issue; the lingering effect isn't obvious, which is why
it's so insidious if one goes back to a mentally challenging task. And
DUI arrests are never much fun.

I.P.

BH wrote:

> I.P., after having the biopsy done

Less bothersome than most tooth cleanings.

> and peeing blood

It's just another liquid until ya looks.

> how much driving would you want to do, and to where?

70 miles each day to go windsurfing.

> Get someone to drive you home

The bx pt ahead of me rode his bike to and from his bx.

> and take it easy!

I get bored real fast taking it easy.

> And, on the topic of a colonoscopy without anesthesia, if you prefer
> to tough that out, you're welcome to it. ... a colonoscopy without
> anesthesia???? BS!

I've done three now sans anything more than anal lubricant. If they're
done right, all we get is an occasional momentary gas pain ... no more
than the average burrito might give. The live TV show is interesting, I
gain a lucid day I'd lose otherwise, and I can drive anywhere and do
anything I like afterwards. My proctologists say a fair number of pts go
it cold turkey, with the IV and anesthesiologist in place in case
they're needed.

I.P.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:17:17 -0700, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

I.P., you're a legend in the making...

BH

>BH wrote:
>
>> I.P., after having the biopsy done
>
>Less bothersome than most tooth cleanings.
>
>> and peeing blood
>
>It's just another liquid until ya looks.
>
>> how much driving would you want to do, and to where?
>
>70 miles each day to go windsurfing.
>
>> Get someone to drive you home
>
>The bx pt ahead of me rode his bike to and from his bx.
>
>> and take it easy!
>
>I get bored real fast taking it easy.
>
>> And, on the topic of a colonoscopy without anesthesia, if you prefer
>> to tough that out, you're welcome to it. ... a colonoscopy without
> > anesthesia???? BS!
>
>I've done three now sans anything more than anal lubricant. If they're
>done right, all we get is an occasional momentary gas pain ... no more
>than the average burrito might give. The live TV show is interesting, I
>gain a lucid day I'd lose otherwise, and I can drive anywhere and do
>anything I like afterwards. My proctologists say a fair number of pts go
>it cold turkey, with the IV and anesthesiologist in place in case
>they're needed.
>
>I.P.
RP in 1995 (age 52)
RT in 2000
ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07
Latest PSA - 0.18

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:17:17 -0700, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>I've done three now sans anything more than anal lubricant. If they're
>done right, all we get is an occasional momentary gas pain ..

....let's be cautious about using the 'we'....

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:PkbSj.806$sC6.136@newsfe07.lga...
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>
>> I will sacrifice a little wooziness (it was nowhere near a day) to assure
>> I'm not one of those in the horrendous category.
>
> Woozy isn't the issue; the lingering effect isn't obvious, which is why
> it's so insidious if one goes back to a mentally challenging task. And DUI
> arrests are never much fun.

I'm thinking no one, anywhere has ever had a DUI arrest under those
circumstances.

Sir, have you been drinking?
No.
I'm going to put you on a breathalyzer.
Okay.
0.000
Sir, I'm going to take blood.
Okay.
0.000

Officer, do I understand that he tested negative for alcohol?
Yes, your honor......

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> news:PkbSj.806$sC6.136@newsfe07.lga...
>> Steve Kramer wrote:
>>
>>> I will sacrifice a little wooziness (it was nowhere near a day) to assure
>>> I'm not one of those in the horrendous category.
>> Woozy isn't the issue; the lingering effect isn't obvious, which is why
>> it's so insidious if one goes back to a mentally challenging task. And DUI
>> arrests are never much fun.
>
> I'm thinking no one, anywhere has ever had a DUI arrest under those
> circumstances.

The issue of the advisability of driving after taking Benadryl the night
before was debated at length on another forum. It was settled when a DA
posted that police are taught to look for any signs of impairment due to
legal prescription or OTC drugs ... a bottle, a pill, pupils, a receipt,
maybe a Walgreen's bag ... *anything* that may implicate their
involvement and trigger closer examination. If a person had a serious
accident that triggered any sort of investigation, his hospital visit
that AM might well show up, in which case the doctor will truthfully say
s/he warned the patient that he was by law chargeable with DUI if he
drove that day after any form of systemic anesthesia, from Benadryl to
morphine.

You take your chances with public safety and your driving record, I'll
take mine.

I.P.

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:481a31c0$0$31766$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> news:PkbSj.806$sC6.136@newsfe07.lga...
>> Steve Kramer wrote:
>>
>>> I will sacrifice a little wooziness (it was nowhere near a day) to
>>> assure I'm not one of those in the horrendous category.
>>
>> Woozy isn't the issue; the lingering effect isn't obvious, which is
>> why it's so insidious if one goes back to a mentally challenging
>> task. And DUI arrests are never much fun.
>
> I'm thinking no one, anywhere has ever had a DUI arrest under those
> circumstances.
>
> Sir, have you been drinking?
> No.
> I'm going to put you on a breathalyzer.
> Okay.
> 0.000
> Sir, I'm going to take blood.
> Okay.
> 0.000
>
> Officer, do I understand that he tested negative for alcohol?
> Yes, your honor......

Glad you played that one out. I have never heard of anything so bloody
ridiculous in my life as a DUI from anaesthesia or benadryl. I would
love to see the Crown Attorney try and make that one stick. ROFL!!!!
>
>

On May first (May Day to the Lefties) Heather replied to Steve K's post
upthread:

> Glad you played that one out. I have never heard of anything so bloody
> ridiculous in my life as a DUI from anaesthesia or benadryl. I would
> love to see the Crown Attorney try and make that one stick. ROFL!!!!

Well, playing Devil's Advocate, (No! You, Steve J, Devil's Advocate? It
is to laugh!) the "I" is "Influence." And that Influence might be from
any drug that impairs one's ability to manage machinery such as an
automobile. Leave aside the matter of impairment of so many who aren't
under the influence of any drug, just stupid....

Anecdote: A few weeks ago, I underwent a biopsy (bx) of my third
thoracic vertebra (T3) to check for mets. In preparation, I was sedated
with Fentanyl and Versed, (this can be dangerous) and monitored by a
dedicated individual via BP, O2 saturation, and cardiac rate and rhythm.

Because I live alone, there was a huge debate over whether I should be
*permitted* to go home alone (while the medic and I waited with whatever
patience we could muster). I was making noises about signing out
"against advice" which is an option. Ended with the Risk Management
folks approving my discharge if and only if I was held for at least two
hours post-procedure to recover. No one raised this issue until they had
me disrobed & in a gown.

AND: all this despite the fact that I was prepared to come & go via very
expensive taxi (>$50 round trip). They claimed that I was at risk if
there was no one at home to keep an eye on me....

It was enough to P O the Pope.

Was I sufficiently alert to drive myself home (~12 miles)? I think that
I was, but I was unwilling to expose the rest of the world to the
possibility that I was not.

Next time, if I'm unlucky enough to be in a similar situation, things
might be different.

But I cannot blame the hospital. If they had sent me out the door
without covering their corporate backside and I had destroyed someone en
route home, they could very well have been in legal trouble.

Regards,

Steve J

On Thu, 01 May 2008 15:20:15 -0700, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>Steve Kramer wrote:
>> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
>> news:PkbSj.806$sC6.136@newsfe07.lga...
>>> Steve Kramer wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will sacrifice a little wooziness (it was nowhere near a day) to assure
>>>> I'm not one of those in the horrendous category.
>>> Woozy isn't the issue; the lingering effect isn't obvious, which is why
>>> it's so insidious if one goes back to a mentally challenging task. And DUI
>>> arrests are never much fun.
>>
>> I'm thinking no one, anywhere has ever had a DUI arrest under those
>> circumstances.
>
>The issue of the advisability of driving after taking Benadryl the night
>before was debated at length on another forum. It was settled when a DA
>posted that police are taught to look for any signs of impairment due to
>legal prescription or OTC drugs ... a bottle, a pill, pupils, a receipt,
>maybe a Walgreen's bag ... *anything* that may implicate their
>involvement and trigger closer examination. If a person had a serious
>accident that triggered any sort of investigation, his hospital visit
>that AM might well show up, in which case the doctor will truthfully say
>s/he warned the patient that he was by law chargeable with DUI if he
>drove that day after any form of systemic anesthesia, from Benadryl to
>morphine.
>
>You take your chances with public safety and your driving record, I'll
>take mine.
>
>I.P.

Honestly, I.P., have you EVER had a doctor warn you that you "would be
chargeable with DUI if you drove that day........"? I've had to have
someone wait for me and drive me home after colonoscopies; but, I've
never had the warning you describe from any doctor.

Personally, I'm more concerned about driving after having my eyes
dialated and my vision is seriously impaired, but no one seems to be
too concerned about that, either.

Burney
RP in 1995 (age 52)
RT in 2000
ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07
Latest PSA - 0.18

Heather wrote:
> I have never heard of anything so bloody
> ridiculous in my life as a DUI from anaesthesia or benadryl. I would
> love to see the Crown Attorney try and make that one stick. ROFL!!!!

The DA I mentioned expressly stated that Bendryl would definitely
qualify a driver for a DUI. Here are just a small percentage of the
drugs tested for in tox screens performed by law firms specializing in
DUI/DWI cases. See
http://www.dui-expert.com/drugs.php?nav=drugs

Allegra® Fexofenadine Antihistamine, relief from allergies
*Benedryl® Diphenhydramine Antihistamine*
Benzedrine® Amphetamine Stimulant
Claritin® Loratadine Antihistamine
Codeine Codeine Narcotic analgesic
Darvocet® Propoxyphene Mild narcotic analgesic
Darvon® Propoxyphene Mild narcotic analgesic
Demerol® Mepridine Synthetic narcotic analgesic
Dimetane Brompheniramine Antihistamine
Motrin® Ibuprofen Non-narcotic analgesic
Paxil® Paroxetine Antidepressant
Percocet® Oxycodone Semi-synthetic narcotic analgesic
Percodan® Oxycodone Semi-synthetic narcotic analgesic
Prozac® Fluoxetine Antidepressant
Sudafed® Pseudoephedrine Nasal decongestant, bronchodilator
Tagamet® Cimetidine Treatment for duodenal ulcers
Tylenol®with Codeine Acetaminophen, Codeine Pain relief
Wellbutrin® Bupropion Antidepressant
Xanax® Alprazolam Antidepressant, panic/phobia disorders
Zantac® Ranitidine Inhibits gastric acid secretion
Zoloft® Sertraline Mental depression

Or consider this from
https://webapp.walgreens.com/cePharm...tion-pharm.pdf


The principal conclusions in the Weiler et al. (2000)
report were that subjects were better able to match the speed
of the car ahead, drove farther behind that car, and had better
steering control after taking alcohol or fexofenadine than after
taking diphenhydramine. Alcohol impaired the secondary
tasks, especially response time to the blocking vehicle, but
overall driving performance was poorest among the study
participants who took the diphenhydramine. Self-reports of
drowsiness were not a good predictor of impairment on the
primary or secondary tasks in this study, suggesting that
“drivers cannot use drowsiness to indicate when they should
not drive.” Based on these results, the report authors issue a
special caution regarding the use of “firstgeneration”
(sedating) antihistamines, suggesting that they
“… may have an even greater impact than does alcohol on the
complex task of operating an automobile.”

Or check out the Missouri Highway Patrol site at
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSH...oxicology.html
; it expressly lists Benedryl (diphenhydramine).

From http://www.cmecorner.com/macmcm/aapa/aapa2002_06.htm

Sedating Properties of Antihistaminics and Their Legal Implications

Weiler and colleagues compared the effects of fexofenadine,
diphenhydramine, alcohol, and placebo in the highly controlled
environment of the Iowa driving simulator (Weiler JM et al. Ann Int Med
2000;132:354). This double-blind, four-treatment, four-period crossover
study involved 40 patients with active seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Following a series of tests involving both objective (e.g., following
distance, lane maintenance, reaction time, steering instability) and
subjective performance outcomes, the investigators concluded that
diphenhydramine has a sedating profile similar to that of a blood
alcohol level of 0.9%. (Twenty-five states have a 0.08 blood-alcohol
level standard for driver intoxication). The effects of fexofenadine
approximated those of placebo. Based on evidence of this kind, 32 states
plus the District of Columbia now restrict driving while impaired by
medication. Penalties for violation include fines of up to $8,000,
revocation or suspension of license to drive ranging from 1 month to 2
years, and imprisonment for 1 day to 2 years. Motor vehicle accidents
comprise the fifth leading cause of death in the United States. The use
of sedating antihistamines increases the risk of accident by a factor of
six, contrasted with the four-fold risk increase associated with driving
while talking on a phone. From 1% to 3% of highway accidents per year in
the United States are attributed to driver sleepiness alone, resulting
in 600 to 1,200 out of a total of 41,500 fatalities.

And on and on and on and on and on from Google.

You guys may some day realize that I usually do my homework before
shooting my mouth off.

Now let's modify that encounter with Offisa Pupp:
"What's that bottle in your shirt pocket, sir?"
"Just Benedryl, Officer. I have nasty hay fever."
"Would you step out real quick and put your hands behind your back for me?"

I.P.

BH wrote:
> Honestly, I.P., have you EVER had a doctor warn you that you "would be
> chargeable with DUI if you drove that day........"?

With absolutely no doubt or exceptions, EVERY single doctor who has
administered ANY systemic drug that may impair driving has not only
merely advised me not to drive until the next day but emphasized it very
strongly and repeatedly. Their paranoia is universal and almost comic.

> Personally, I'm more concerned about driving after having my eyes
> dialated and my vision is seriously impaired, but no one seems to be
> too concerned about that, either.

My eye docs always tell me to bring very dark shades, they always
administer dilation antidotes after the exam, and some have offered dark
shades.

I.P.

Heather wrote:
> "Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:481a31c0$0$31766$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>
>> Sir, have you been drinking?
>> No.
>> I'm going to put you on a breathalyzer.
>> Okay.
>> 0.000
>> Sir, I'm going to take blood.
>> Okay.
>> 0.000
>>
>> Officer, do I understand that he tested negative for alcohol?
>> Yes, your honor......
>
> Glad you played that one out. I have never heard of anything so bloody
> ridiculous in my life as a DUI from anaesthesia or benadryl. I would
> love to see the Crown Attorney try and make that one stick. ROFL!!!!


Heather (LOL), who used to serve coffee (ROFL) in a law office 80 years
ago (LOL) and now claims (ROFL) to understand law (grin) has never heard
anything so bloody ridiculous (ROFL) as DUI from aneasthesia. Maybe
Heather LOL) should take a look at the statute before venting her stupidity:

Criminal Code
PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Motor Vehicles, Vessels and Aircraft

Operation while impaired


253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel
or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway
equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel,
aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft
or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in
the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred
millilitres of blood.



>>
>
>

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:CmrSj.58$bU7.10@newsfe07.lga...

> The issue of the advisability of driving after taking Benadryl the night
> before was debated at length on another forum. It was settled when a DA
> posted that police are taught to look for any signs of impairment due to
> legal prescription or OTC drugs ... a bottle, a pill, pupils, a receipt,
> maybe a Walgreen's bag ...

Benadryl? Yeah, I will agree with that.

"Steve Jordan" <mycroftscj1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:iksSj.7665$DG.2786@newsfe10.phx...

> Was I sufficiently alert to drive myself home (~12 miles)? I think that I
> was, but I was unwilling to expose the rest of the world to the
> possibility that I was not.

For clarification, I agree with that. Driving home from the hospital is
bordering on the insane (and illegal). We were talking about, or at least I
think we were talking about, after you get home, a few hours later, you feel
good and ready to drive. The effects of the drug are gone from your system;
as is likely the drug.

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "Steve Jordan" <mycroftscj1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:iksSj.7665$DG.2786@newsfe10.phx...
>
>> Was I sufficiently alert to drive myself home (~12 miles)? I think that I
>> was, but I was unwilling to expose the rest of the world to the
>> possibility that I was not.
>
> For clarification, I agree with that. Driving home from the hospital is
> bordering on the insane (and illegal). We were talking about, or at least I
> think we were talking about, after you get home, a few hours later, you feel
> good and ready to drive. The effects of the drug are gone from your system;
> as is likely the drug.

Steve, the links I posted refute that very strongly. I've cited a small
smattering of my evidence.
Yours?

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:irLSj.42$Lv.6@newsfe05.lga...
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>> "Steve Jordan" <mycroftscj1@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:iksSj.7665$DG.2786@newsfe10.phx...
>>
>>> Was I sufficiently alert to drive myself home (~12 miles)? I think that
>>> I was, but I was unwilling to expose the rest of the world to the
>>> possibility that I was not.
>>
>> For clarification, I agree with that. Driving home from the hospital is
>> bordering on the insane (and illegal). We were talking about, or at
>> least I think we were talking about, after you get home, a few hours
>> later, you feel good and ready to drive. The effects of the drug are
>> gone from your system; as is likely the drug.
>
> Steve, the links I posted refute that very strongly. I've cited a small
> smattering of my evidence.

Sorry, I didn't see a link. What did say?

Steve Kramer wrote:

> Sorry, I didn't see a link. What did say?

Heather wrote:
> I have never heard of anything so bloody ridiculous in my life as a
DUI from anaesthesia or benadryl. I would love to see the Crown
Attorney try and make that one stick. ROFL!!!!

The DA I mentioned expressly stated that Bendryl would definitely
qualify a driver for a DUI. Here are just a small percentage of the
drugs tested for in tox screens performed by law firms specializing in
DUI/DWI cases. See
http://www.dui-expert.com/drugs.php?nav=drugs

Allegra® Fexofenadine Antihistamine, relief from allergies
*Benedryl® Diphenhydramine Antihistamine*
Benzedrine® Amphetamine Stimulant
Claritin® Loratadine Antihistamine
Codeine Codeine Narcotic analgesic
Darvocet® Propoxyphene Mild narcotic analgesic
Darvon® Propoxyphene Mild narcotic analgesic
Demerol® Mepridine Synthetic narcotic analgesic
Dimetane Brompheniramine Antihistamine
Motrin® Ibuprofen Non-narcotic analgesic
Paxil® Paroxetine Antidepressant
Percocet® Oxycodone Semi-synthetic narcotic analgesic
Percodan® Oxycodone Semi-synthetic narcotic analgesic
Prozac® Fluoxetine Antidepressant
Sudafed® Pseudoephedrine Nasal decongestant, bronchodilator
Tagamet® Cimetidine Treatment for duodenal ulcers
Tylenol®with Codeine Acetaminophen, Codeine Pain relief
Wellbutrin® Bupropion Antidepressant
Xanax® Alprazolam Antidepressant, panic/phobia disorders
Zantac® Ranitidine Inhibits gastric acid secretion
Zoloft® Sertraline Mental depression

Or consider this from
https://webapp.walgreens.com/cePharm...tion-pharm.pdf

The principal conclusions in the Weiler et al. (2000)
report were that subjects were better able to match the speed
of the car ahead, drove farther behind that car, and had better
steering control after taking alcohol or fexofenadine than after
taking diphenhydramine. Alcohol impaired the secondary
tasks, especially response time to the blocking vehicle, but
overall driving performance was poorest among the study
participants who took the diphenhydramine. Self-reports of
drowsiness were not a good predictor of impairment on the
primary or secondary tasks in this study, suggesting that
“drivers cannot use drowsiness to indicate when they should
not drive.” Based on these results, the report authors issue a
special caution regarding the use of “firstgeneration”
(sedating) antihistamines, suggesting that they
“… may have an even greater impact than does alcohol on the
complex task of operating an automobile.”

Or check out the Missouri Highway Patrol site at
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSH...oxicology.html
; it expressly lists Benedryl (diphenhydramine).

From http://www.cmecorner.com/macmcm/aapa/aapa2002_06.htm

Sedating Properties of Antihistaminics and Their Legal Implications

Weiler and colleagues compared the effects of fexofenadine,
diphenhydramine, alcohol, and placebo in the highly controlled
environment of the Iowa driving simulator (Weiler JM et al. Ann Int Med
2000;132:354). This double-blind, four-treatment, four-period crossover
study involved 40 patients with active seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Following a series of tests involving both objective (e.g., following
distance, lane maintenance, reaction time, steering instability) and
subjective performance outcomes, the investigators concluded that
diphenhydramine has a sedating profile similar to that of a blood
alcohol level of 0.9%. (Twenty-five states have a 0.08 blood-alcohol
level standard for driver intoxication). The effects of fexofenadine
approximated those of placebo. Based on evidence of this kind, 32 states
plus the District of Columbia now restrict driving while impaired by
medication. Penalties for violation include fines of up to $8,000,
revocation or suspension of license to drive ranging from 1 month to 2
years, and imprisonment for 1 day to 2 years. Motor vehicle accidents
comprise the fifth leading cause of death in the United States. The use
of sedating antihistamines increases the risk of accident by a factor of
six, contrasted with the four-fold risk increase associated with driving
while talking on a phone. From 1% to 3% of highway accidents per year in
the United States are attributed to driver sleepiness alone, resulting
in 600 to 1,200 out of a total of 41,500 fatalities.

And on and on and on and on and on from Google.

You guys may some day realize that I usually do my homework before
shooting my mouth off.

Now let's modify that encounter with Offisa Pupp:
"What's that bottle in your shirt pocket, sir?"
"Just Benedryl, Officer. I have nasty hay fever."
"Would you step out real quick and put your hands behind your back for me?"

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:QhNSj.124$md1.80@newsfe02.lga...
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I didn't see a link. What did say?

> http://www.dui-expert.com/drugs.php?nav=drugs


Oh, the Benedryle tabs. Yeah, I've already agreed with that.

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> news:QhNSj.124$md1.80@newsfe02.lga...
>> Steve Kramer wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't see a link. What did say?
>
>> http://www.dui-expert.com/drugs.php?nav=drugs
>
>
> Oh, the Benedryle tabs. Yeah, I've already agreed with that.
>
>
Yes, plus scores of other common drugs.

I.P.