4 ms·

A friend of mine had her young brother suddenly developing a narrow line on the skin, growing quickly; 24 hours later both his arms and legs were amputated to k

• yepthatsreality 7y ago
  What was the cause of the amputation?
• IAmGraydon 7y ago
  That's called Lymphangitis and it's a sign that there is an extreme underlying infection, usually by the same bacteria that this article is about.
• saiya-jin 7y ago
  I would consider it a mandatory equipment of the household. Primarily I take them on trips to remote 3rd world countries where you can't rely on quick quality health care, even though most of the time I come back home with them untouched. For me its usually Sumamed, plus whatever specific for destination (malaria pills, stomach/throat, eyes etc.). Just beware of the expiration - they may lose potency and better renew them. I am not sure I would use them at home in case you describe though - I would just run to emergency if possible. Also antibiotics don't work with viruses, fungus or parasites, so its not a panacea.
  • flr03 7y ago
    You really don't want people to have ready to use antibiotics at home. It's already very difficult to contain bacteria resistance to antibiotics. Very soon people would not only die from rare bacteria related decease but any kind of random bacteria infection.
    • bitL 7y ago
      Your points are valid, people are irresponsible with antibiotics, however consider that e.g. 1 hour drive to emergency would cost you an arm, literally, whereas quickly eating 5 pills of wide-spectrum antibiotics would keep the infection at bay and give you time to drive to ER without any adversarial effects on your future life. What would be your choice?
      • PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        If that was allowed, it might save hundreds in the short term and doom millions in the long term. Of course I'd do whatever it took to save myself or my loved ones. Anyone would. That's not a good basis for government policy. (Also, being honest, the number of situations where powerful antibiotics now vs. at the hospital would make a difference and the people involve realize that and administer them has got to be tiny. We can't make policy based on low-probability hypotheticals.)
        • dragonwriter 7y ago
          > If that was allowed, it might save hundreds in the short term and doom millions in the long term. It might save hundreds and but also kill thousands in the short-term, too: powerful broad spectrum antibiotics aren't without adverse effects, perhaps especially if taken in a genuine emergency that just isn't the kind of emergency the user thinks it is.
      • flr03 7y ago
        My choice would be to take the antibiotics. And that's all the problem. Because maybe I wouldn't need them, because well, you don't lose an arm from infection everyday. And I'd like to say that all the people who would have access to antibiotics would be better than me at knowing when to take or not to take them, but I guess not.
      • majewsky 7y ago
        The dichotomy is wrong. If you allow people to have antibiotics at home, enough of them are gonna chew them like vitamins to spread antibiotics resistance even faster. Then when you have your emergency, sure you can eat your pills, but it's not gonna do shit. The only remotely viable solution is improving access to ERs.
• dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I am wondering if having allowed emergency wide-spectrum antibiotics freely for such cases would help? The problem is you also need emergency physicians available equally freely and ubiquitously to identify the need. Unnecessary use of powerful, broad spectrum antibiotics has significant potential adverse personal and public health consequences, and the general public is not qualified to appropriately assess need for use.