Talk:Pentobarbital
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Approved
Approved means FDA approved? That's a strong UScentric bias. It's an approved substance in Oregon, and there's little debate that it achieves the desired effect, so it should be listed. Just as a drug approved in Sweden for some purpose should be listed, or a drug approved in Malaysia. Sarge Baldy 20:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here is what I originally wrote (prior to the edit conflict—I just had to go and clean up the approved uses format. Blech.):
-
- Because while it may be used for such in the state of Oregon (PDF), it is not FDA (or anywhere else's agency) approved for such a purpose. I'm talking about in humans, by the way.
I only added the information in the third parentheses to make it less US-centric. I'm not saying that approved = FDA-approved. I said FDA approved because Oregon fell under their jurisdiction, and it sounded as if you were going by their use alone (are you?). In Oregon, like the rest of the United States, substances can be approved for one use, and prescribed for something else entirely (notice that Davis's Drug Guide for Nurses mentions coma induction is ischemia patients as an off-label use. Do you really see the manufacturers (yes, there's more than one at this point) going to the FDA and asking them for official approval for physician-assisted suicide? There just isn't that much money in it (it went generic decades ago, not exactly the most common use, etc). And doctors in Oregon already know it's good for that, so why bother?
I notice that you didn't cite single source for it's being approved for that purpose anywhere.--Rmky87 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
The image is wrong, it has one to many carbons in the 1-methylbutyl group. KarlHallon 17:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Drug Interactions
I have commented out a contribution in the drug interactions section, I am sorry for not just correcting it, but I dont consider myself knowledgeable enough to correct it. I commented it out instead of deleting it so that it may be promptly corrected, the relevant citation is included here for the same purpose. [1]
The cited article states in the abstract (and the title) that norfluoxetine facilitates pentobarbital sedation, which is measured by the loss of the righting reflex. The abstract states that social isolation reverses the loss of the righting reflex, that is, social isolation decreases sedation (it is hinted that this is because of increased anxiety. Norfluoxetine, restores (or facilitates) sedation. The cited article's horrible redaction is at fault here, it uses a triple negation, stating that the administration of fluoxetine to socially isolated mice reverses the reduced duration of pentobarbital-induced righting reflex loss.
Again, I apologize for merely deleting this, but it seemed to me that an interaction reported as the opposite of what it is should not be left in the article. I dont mean to offend the author, who is probably better read than me in this topic, and it is only through his impeccable citation that I detected the mistake.Apwith 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References and End Notes
- ^ Pinna, Graziano; Erminio Costa and Alessandro Guidotti (April 20, 2004). "Fluoxetine and norfluoxetine stereospecifically facilitate pentobarbital sedation by increasing neurosteroids". Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America 101 (16): 6222-6225. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0401479101.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apwith (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
