Second Question of the Day January 1, 2015 Aren't the advertisements and notices stating there is a "right" or "entitlement" to compounded medications totally contrary to the law that says compounded medications are based on need? If we have a "right" or "entitlement" to drugs of choice what does this do to the laws regarding illegal substances? If there are no or should be no federal regulations of compounded drugs and we have a "right" to them according to these advertisements then does that "individual right" trump the health and safety of the public? Where do compounders draw the line or is there any line at all in their opinion? Are is it simply their right as compounders to make compounded medications and our right at US citizens to use compounded medications if we choose--even if untested, ineffective, and could cause harm to pets or humans? Will the new group of compounding pharmacist emerging who do not like the current messages advocated and who want compounding to based solely on legitimate need and not on entitlement theory be able to change the profession?

Question of the Day January 1, 2015 IACP and others continue to advocate that the DQSA and the FDA have hindered treatment options because traditional compounding pharmacies cannot provide office use compounding. Very few states allow office use compounding. How have all the states that do not allow office use compounding been able to function for all the years prior to the DQSA? Why hasn't the focus been on changing all these state laws in the past? And why haven't states changed these laws if compounded office use is so essential?

Another Incident Involving Compounding Pharmacy: Endophthalmitis Outbreak Associated with Repackaged Bevacizumab - Volume 21, Number 1—January 2015 - Emerging Infectious Disease journal - CDC

Endophthalmitis Outbreak Associated with Repackaged Bevacizumab - Volume 21, Number 1—January 2015 - Emerging Infectious Disease journal - CDC