Quote:
Originally Posted by Redway
Yeah, some people are particularly sensitive to the effects of alcohol when mixed with some other drugs but expecting people to give up alcohol together (even on Christmas Day) all in the name of side-effects they probably won’t get (maybe not even a hangover in the first place) is just too pearl-clutchy for me and not applicable in the majority of cases. It’s better when healthcare providers state the actual risks as they are, without fluff. Sometimes the medication doesn’t even work well enough for it to be worth the sacrifice of having to stick to over-priced J20 and tap-water at the pub.
I say all that as someone who’s fundamentally very anti-hypocrisy when it comes to the divide between alcohol and other (often far less inherently harmful) drugs but at the same time I’m very far from teetotal. No medication for me, as it stands at the moment, would be worth me completely cutting out alcohol, especially when it’s not actually strictly necessary. It’s like trigger-warnings on ITVX. A sensitive minority might appreciate it but most people know what to expect with these shows in all the decades they’ve been on-screen and wouldn’t bat an eyelid. I think it’s the same principle behind informed consent, that people could be told what the actual risk is in individual context, not just the worst-case scenario. The way alcohol’s so deeply embedded in British culture especially, for better or worse, just makes it impractical and unrealistic for people to be expected to give up booze in the name of medication when it’s not absolutely necessary.
|
…realistically I think that it’s probably realised that most wouldn’t abstain from alcohol completely but I guess that it’s given more for disclaimer purposes…?…if they didn’t recommend it and state that the combination could have a health impact or reduce/void the efficiency of the medication etc…?..then the companies would become more libel if they didn’t state these things…?…(…I’m thinking…)…