How much can an ms patient debate with their doctor on treatment medication? I checked out the national ms foundation's ten approved medications, and I have to say two or three of them there's simply no debate necessary. I'm not taking them thank you very much.

And as I am still a dedicated member of the amoxicillin club for infection treatment, I would prefer an older treatment that has built up a history. For my first choice it would be Coxapone. I'm not particularly concerned about allergic reactions even ones that may develop with continued exposure. Give me an epi-pin with it if you must, I know the signs of an allergic reaction. But some of the newer ones I simply don't trust yet.

My devotion to amoxicillin has saved me from being prescribed some of the newer antibiotics that are now being linked to serious health problems, including neurological damage. There's no school like the old school . Though admittedly if I were a bit worse off than I am currently, I'd probably happily don my little white mouse ears and tell them test away! I just don't see the necessity for it at this point, gimme a few years....

But how much can one debate with their neuro over the medication? Especially when the effectiveness, old or new, is unknown. Does that open it up for more personal choice? Or remove the choice and the neuro simply picks the one they like?

Arguing for amoxicillin with the GP is easy, he can point out that the newer ones are more effective, but can't tell me that my amoxi simply isn't going to work it is effective but does require a larger dose on some infections, and has tried to argue the finer points of a tiny pill once a day versus up to two horse size pills four times a day. Neighing and tapping my foot twice is my answer. And my strep, bronchial infections and whatnots have cleared up in a few days. Only once did I not argue, it was a mild tonsil infection, figured it wouldn't matter... And it became 'resistant' pneumonia that finally cleared up after near hospitalization when the doctor gave me amoxicillin, having basically run through the other antibiotics with no signs of improvement only worsening of the infection.

That makes for an easy debate, it's proven effective and has been around long enough for patients to report any and all possible side-effects including any and all that might crop up down the road after treatment. All of the MS treatments lack measurable 'effectiveness', and really both the new and the old are babies in the world of medicine concerning side-effects. So how can I enter a debate with the neuro? And should I even try?

Any potential side-effects are going to be dependent upon my body's chemical make-up, ditto for the effectiveness. But I really don't want to play Russian roulette at this time, or at least since I'm going to be playing regardless, I'd like the chamber to be as empty as possible.