Spiff

Be that as it may, we still have the original problem:

1) Another physician prescribed the sunblock in question

2) The TSA screeners who stole the sunblock from the OP (and other medications from other travelers) practiced medicine without a license.

Comrade Kip Hawley's idiot directives not only violate the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take, but also cause those who follow them to practice medicine without a license.

As a Professional Engineer, I'd be livid if Comrade Hawley presumed to tell me how to practice engineering or interfered with my clients. If I were a physician, 1) and 2) above would have me trying to drag Comrade Hawley into court.

cme2c

1) No he did not prescribe it, it was an OTC product. If it had a prescription label, it wouldn't have been a problem.

2) Travelers should prepare for the rules, if they are not prepared to follow them they should be prepared for the consequences. Again, the rules may be stupid, but the place to protest that is not the checkpoint. If you expect results at the checkpoint it is you that is an "idiot", not Kip Hawley.

frink

Since you're a doctor, I'd like an answer to something I posted earlier (quoting the FDA).

One of the points of OTC medication is that the patient can self diagnose and self treat. To import a term from the legal world, a person is acting as a doctor pro se when self medicating with OTC drugs.

Why should the TSA be allowed* to differentiate between prescription-only drugs and OTC drugs. If I have a bad case of food poisoning (or a hangover) why on earth should my 4oz of Pepto be treated any differently than something a doctor might give me?

* By "allowed" I guess I mean, "Why isn't the medical community up in arms over this?" "Why isn't the medical community decrying the TSA's interference with my right to practice medicne pro se (with OTC drugs)?"

stimpy

I'm back online again. Wow. Well you are wrong about a lot of things including the above. I admitted I made a mistake in misplacing my prescription and I made a mistake in posting the OP while I was severely jet lagged.

The doctor DID prescribe this. Doctors can prescribe OTC ya know. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Also, my doctor did not sell me the medication. That is a horrible assumption to make. Shame on you.

Teacher49

You are asking people to make a pretty fine distinction in terminology.

Are you suggesting that a doc recommend only anciliary treatments that definitely "work" and leave out benign approaches that merely may help avoid exacerbation? I would disagree with that. I think a doc's role is to come up with approaches that include the most sure, the probable and the merely "it might help and surely won't hurt" provided the last two are not intrusive or laden with side effect.

If my doc said, "look, there's a lot we don't know yet, but protecting yourself from the sun with this cream which is looking like it may be better than Coppertone" that would be reason enough for me to consider it prescribed.

Sure that the law is not your field?

I agree that the screeners are not well enough trained in making such judgments. I agree that the fault lies with their supervisors and with the rule makers. I agree that when we put ourselves in the position of requiring that such a judgment be made on the line, it is a crap shoot.

These are all weaknesses in a system that has its focus on the wrong things. Plenty of reason to be outraged when the effect is that a doctor recommended part of taking care of one's self is interdicted, IMO.

The OP takes responsibility for his oversights. That doesn't preclude slamming a system that is horribly flawed and intrusive and that requires such a fine attention of busy people to constantly changing and irrelevent detail.

cme2c

Again, a previous post I discussed that "prescribe" can be have different meanings. In a strict medical definition it is impossible to "prescribe" an OTC product. Note I say product, because this is not a medication. If this was a medication it would have had to undergo more strict screening by the FDA before it was approved. Sunscreens do undergo more strict screening than other "cosmetics", but still no where near what other drugs do. Also, they are not approved for the "treatment of cancer" because there is limited information that they actually work in that capacity. The claims made by the manufacturer would have been scrutinized which they haven't. I acknowledge that patients and doctors have different definitions.

Again, I said it was a possibility that he sold you that because that is rampant in medicine right now, I didn't say I knew for sure. Shame on me? Think what you may, but unfortunately it is my past experiences which let me to think that was a possibility. That is the shame.

So just curious if he "prescribed" it why do you need both a prescription and a doctor's note. Isn't a prescription already a "doctor's note"? That seems like a contradiction to me and that was my point. Also if it was "prescribed" why wasn't it labeled by the pharmacy. They could have easily slapped a label on it. Unfortunately people come to this forum to get sympathy and have everyone comfort them and say.. "you were right, sue the TSA...." That is what this appeared to be to this FTer. That is an opinion of course.

FliesWay2Much

One aspect of people's medications -- prescription or OTC -- and the confiscation (oops -- voluntary surrendering) thereof that is just below the surface is the long-standing FAA rule that passengers have to have a minimum level of physical and mental fitness in order to be able to fly. Granted, the application of these rules are pretty broad, and the only time most of us see it in practice is the rule that the people who get extra legroom by sitting in a window exit row have to be physically capable of opening the escape hatch, etc. I believe another rule is that a person must be able to fit into a seatbelt (with extension). I would suppose that this rule would exclude morbidly obese people from flying.

I've read enough posts written by credible people accusing the TSA of getting very close to the line -- if not already crossing it -- of practicing medicine without a license to convince me that a lawsuit and/or passenger death is right around the corner. Re-read some of the comments from screeners along these lines. Some have judged that sunscreen isn't a cancer medicine, contact lens solution isn't necessary, a constant source of water isn't required for some sorts of conditions, etc. They make these assertions with a level of confidence that astounds me.

It follows then that there is nothing to prevent the TSA from developing all sorts of new categories of people who are "medically unfit to fly." Then, there's no threat of a lawsuit, screening becomes easy again, lines move faster, and everyone is happy. Diabetics with pumps? Sorry -- pumps aren't allowed so you're medically unfit to fly. Can't remove your shoes because of an orthopedic condition? Sorry -- you must remove your shoes or you're medically unfit to fly. You need to keep your eyes moist because of cataract surgery? Sorry -- saline solution in bottles over 3oz isn't allowed making you medically unfit to fly. The list goes on & on... When I think about it, I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of hassles people have had with the TSA, except for perhaps the Freedom Bag Incident, have involved medical-type issues. Remove the cause of the issue and the issue itself goes away.

The resulting loss of airline revenue isn't of concern to the TSA, and something tells me they could make this line of thinking stick. They could staff these new rules through Justice, get coordination from the AMA, etc, and justify this under the "reasonable accomodation" doctrine, where the TSA gets to decide what's "reasonable." All the Americans with Disabilities Act requires is "reasonable accomodation" for handicapped persons (permanently or temporarily) from government and the private sector. (I had a physically handicapped employee once and I know all about "reasonable accomodation"!)

Something tells me that the TSA could have pulled this off in 2002 and that the American Sheople would have bought into it.

Any thoughts from real lawyers or people far more experienced in this area than me?

cme2c

I agree they shouldn't be able to do this. But why isn't the medical community "up in arms". Give me a break. The reason is that since they are OTC, you can buy them when you get there if you really need them that bad and if it's OTC you can buy them in small enough sizes to follow the rules why is that so difficult. Don't get me wrong I am all for civil disobedience, but be prepared for the consequences when it doesn't work. There are a lot more pressing problems in medicine than someone's ability to take Pepto-Bismol on the plane.

cme2c

I agree with most of what you said. In no way am I saying this product shouldn't be offered, but it should not be offered as "cancer medication". Heck my doctor says to eat lots of fruit for my potassium which if low could cause a fatal heart arrythmia, does that mean it's my "heart medication"? No, that's silly.

Jenbel

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!

You no doubt are a doctor in the US. You may not be able to prescribe OTC medicines. In other countries, doctors are free to prescribe OTC medicines if they feel it is appropriate. You don't know all the procedures available in all countries - to make such a blanket statement, on a board frequented by an international community is pretty poor! I've had prescriptions from my doctor for anti-histamines, which I could have bought over the counter, but were cheaper if he prescribed them for me. My mother has had OTC things prescribed for a skin condition, because she gets free prescriptions within the NHS. The list goes on and on and on, because it's quite a common occurrence over here. Just because it doesn't happen in the US, doesn't mean it can't happen

Which is also the problem with TSA rules. One size fits all, without regard for how things are done in the world outside the US. When I get a prescription in the UK, the bit the doctor has signed (the prescription) gets handed over to the pharamacist and is retained by them. Difficult to present something to the TSA which our NHS requires the pharmacist to retain to allow the paperwork and payment of the prescription to be made in the UK

KleineFrau

1) Perhaps a person needs specific OTC medication. What if more than three ounces is needed during the flight and/or it is not available in the place where the person is going? What then?

2) For a person with certain stomach ailments, I would suggest that having Pepto-Bismol is very important on the plane.

cme2c

I agree with your post for the most part, but I'm sorry I have to take issue with this part. #1 you shouldn't use "saline solution" in your eyes after cataract surgery, it has no useful lubricating properties and will actually dry things out. #2 if you need 3 oz of an actual "artificial tear" supplement, get another surgeon because 1 oz should last a couple months and I have not seen seen a bottle bigger than 1 oz. for an actual "artificial tear."

Again, it is embellishments like this that dimish the overall message that we should be sending to the TSA. They are buried in so many junk complaints that they can't devote attention to the real ones. Sure they should hire more people ... but they don't so we need to do our part.

Spiff

They do not need more people!

They should make better use of their existing resources and stop harassing passengers with stupid security like the War on Liquids and the Shoe Carnival.

cme2c

I write prescriptions for OTC medicines all the time. It happens here, especially with Medicaid since it will pay for Tylenol and the like, but it still doesn't make those "prescription medications". Again, we are arguing over the use of the word "prescribed" that has different meanings to different people which I have acknowledged. That doesn't make me WRONG WRONG WRONG, it means I have a different perspective.

Xyzzy

I use the same stuff (the tube of #55 sunblock). With the current rules, I've just stuck it into my Freedom Baggie(TM) and have had no problem carrying it on board. The tubes are 2.75oz IIRC. If you had the same stuff they had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to take your stuff away.