It’s true that patients can be demanding and ask for things that make absolutely no sense, but we often overlook a fundamental reality: patients are the consumers, and doctors are the service providers. In many ways, physicians are essentially being paid by the people they treat.
Because of that dynamic, they need to exercise patience and take the time to walk patients through their treatment recommendations. Now, look—their explanation might not change the underlying physiology of the condition, but they are dealing with human beings, not livestock. They ought to treat people with a baseline level of respect. And let’s be clear: at the end of the day, the doctor provides the recommendation, but the final call belongs to the patient. If someone isn't on board with what their doctor suggests, they should simply find another provider for a second opinion. A physician can’t guarantee a miracle cure or a painless experience.
I’ve always had a soft spot for these kinds of off-topic posts. I couldn't care less about the actual subject matter, but I’ll happily sit here and speculate on everyone's little dramas—who's seeing whom, why they're doing it, and all that jazz. Honestly, Rachel Brooks63, be a pal and moderate this; feel free to scrub both Donna Clark77's nonsense and my own rambling, since all three of us are completely off the rails here.
Jose Miller3 said:But honestly, if we're still talking about what happened with the guy who started this thread... I can't really say his girlfriend's doctor was being rude. Based on how he described it, there's zero evidence for that—absolutely nothing.
To me, it sounds like she went in, the doctor checked her out, listened to what was going on, and decided it was just the flu or some virus—so she told her to rest, drink tea, and take some Advil for the fever. In my opinion, a GP most of the time is more than capable of figuring out when it’s just a virus versus when someone actually needs antibiotics. Then, the girlfriend probably started pushing for Zithromax because "that's what helped her boyfriend." In that scenario, it makes total sense that the doctor would just send her away with a referral to an infectious disease clinic instead.😉
Jose Miller3, you might be a moderator, but you aren't paying attention. Please, actually read what the person wrote here:
George Fox3 said:...and she just sent her straight to infectious disease without even examining her.
So, it’s perfectly clear that his girlfriend's primary care physician didn't examine her, didn't do her job, and did nothing except refer her to a specialist without a proper checkup. From my perspective, this isn't about "maintaining order." It's about a GP treating a patient inhumanely, failing to perform basic duties, and wasting Medicare funds by charging for her own negligence and sending patients to specialists unnecessarily.
Jose Miller3 said:But honestly, if we're still talking about what happened with the guy who started this thread... I can't really say his girlfriend's doctor was being rude. Based on how he described it, there's zero evidence for that—absolutely nothing.
To me, it sounds like she went in, the doctor checked her out, listened to what was going on, and decided it was just the flu or some virus—so she told her to rest, drink tea, and take some Advil for the fever. In my opinion, a GP most of the time is more than capable of figuring out when it’s just a virus versus when someone actually needs antibiotics. Then, the girlfriend probably started pushing for Zithromax because "that's what helped her boyfriend." In that scenario, it makes total sense that the doctor would just send her away with a referral to an infectious disease clinic instead.😉
Sorry, but you're just leaning on a narrative you've constructed in your head that doesn't align with the actual facts of the original post.
Do you think the doctor-patient relationship is functioning properly these days?
I get the impression we’re dealing with a chaotic mess, characterized by a complete lack of consistency across the board. While some patients manage to secure extra attention and have their preferences respected, most people end up having a rough time, being treated more like pieces of meat than actual human beings.
From what I can see, doctors within the National Health Service are under immense pressure from Medicare & Medicaid. These institutions set unrealistically high quotas for patient visits and procedures, which inevitably leads to burnout and deep resentment among medical staff. Unfortunately, this justified frustration often spills over onto the patients in ways that are completely unacceptable. There used to be this old-school notion that doctors were untouchable figures of authority, but nowadays, that ego is frequently paired with genuine dissatisfaction. Patients aren't given enough attention, they aren't treated as partners in their own care with a right to make decisions, and there seems to be a total disregard for the fact that it is the patients who effectively fund these doctors and their entire operation. Then you have the sheer arrogance of the support staff—nurses wandering through hospitals watching TV, getting annoyed if a patient actually dares to call them or ask for something. It’s as if they aren't actually being paid to care for anyone. The avenues for reporting negligence, misconduct, or subpar treatment are incredibly narrow, and the chances of successfully suing over these violations are practically nonexistent.
The system is fundamentally upside down: doctors control resources collected by Medicare & Medicaid through legal mandate (though even those funds are often insufficient because certain companies dodge their contributions, but that’s a legal rabbit hole for another day). Patients frequently face inhumane wait times for diagnostics and treatment. They don't have the power of choice—which would theoretically punish arrogant doctors by driving away their clientele—they have no way to ensure quality of service (thanks to that infamous "medical collegiality" where doctors protect one another's mistakes), and they have little say in therapeutic procedures. Too often, doctors make paternalistic decisions unilaterally without even consulting the patient, prioritizing their own convenience over the patient's best interests.
The only ones coming out on top are the bureaucrats—the hospital administrators. Through embezzlement and rigged procurement processes, they amass significant illegal wealth. In essence, they are stealing from the sick, depriving them of the very funds needed for treatment. Or, they are stealing from the physicians, who are forced to work harder for less, only to have their pay delayed due to "budget shortages" once the administrators have finished lining their pockets.
But since doctors refuse to let non-physician managers run their departments (and honestly, why should they?), these administrators are also shielded by that same sense of professional solidarity. We are stuck with a hierarchical system reminiscent of a medieval guild, and the patients are the ones paying the price. Isn't it time for some radical changes?
I believe the standard protocol is about four days for facial procedures, while you’re looking at five to seven days for other areas before the stitches need to come out—you know, when you head back to the doctor to have them snipped and pulled. I can't speak to phimosis specifically, but given how great the blood flow is in that area, it probably heals a bit faster.
If they're dissolvable, then everything really just depends on the specific type and where they were placed. Bottom line: just ask your doctor.
Theoretically, the argument about community-associated antibiotic resistance holds water. But here’s the real question: do you actually want to undergo a thousand different tests just to determine if you specifically need Zithromax or if something milder will suffice, all while you sit there suffering through symptoms and pain waiting for the results? At the very least, that kind of approach feels inhumane. You’re sick, you came in for medication, not an endless diagnostic odyssey.
I don't know who would volunteer to be holier than the Pope by refusing Zithromax, especially when so many doctors prescribe it left and right, which arguably does more to fuel antibiotic resistance than anything else. It’s like being told the public needs to conserve water by skipping daily showers, while meanwhile, industrial farms growing cotton for export are using hundreds of times more water than any household ever could, consuming whatever they want regardless. Who is actually going to endure personal discomfort for a marginal benefit to the community? Very few people.
Honestly, the easiest route is to just visit a doctor who writes prescriptions and get the Zithromax; I'm fairly certain it isn't hard to find, and someone mentioned seeing Zithromax available via online retailers as an alternative.
In any case, I wouldn't put up with a condescending doctor. I’d take my medical records elsewhere to find someone who treats me with respect and communicates with me like an intelligent human being. If you let people walk all over you, you're basically signaling that you're fine with being treated like a second-class citizen with no say in the matter.
It’s entirely possible you're dealing with a tooth infection. They aren't always accompanied by throbbing pain, but they can absolutely cause issues that radiate down into your throat. I went through something remarkably similar after having one of my wisdom teeth partially extracted. I dealt with this persistent, nagging sore throat that just wouldn't quit. If I stayed on top of my health and kept my immune system up, I could manage, but the second work stress kicked in, I stopped hitting the gym, or I started eating junk food, the inflammation would come roaring back. Once I finally had the tooth pulled, it turned out there was a small pocket formed above the site where an infection had taken hold—which I assume was what was bothering my throat all along. As soon as the tooth was gone, the throat irritation vanished.
I honestly don't follow why they'd want to drain half a liter of blood from you. Personally, I’d turn that down in a heartbeat unless they provided a damn good reason to let that happen.
Honestly, there are way too many unknown variables in this scenario for anyone to draw a definitive conclusion. We’re basically just stuck in a loop of bickering—either we take aim at the overprescription of antibiotics, or we blame the doctors for being lazy.
Here’s my take: we’re talking about someone’s health here. If the patient is asking for Zithromax and her throat exam suggests a bacterial infection might be the culprit, don't you think it's perfectly reasonable to advise her that getting a throat culture first is the smarter move to find the right antibiotic? But if she refuses to budge and insists on having that Zithromax right this second, then fine—just write the damn Zithromax.