it's mis-taking that is the real problem
not only non-taking, but also unsupervised overdosing.

I would also purport to you that drug stealing/sharing/selling has not been an issue, because by in large, drugs have not been present in the general population, historically.  When you let/make cadets tote their stuff around, I suspect you will see incidents rise.

I would suggest an inspection of medication, make sure that the medication has a legitimate prescription along with the inspection should be a drug book that is up to date so that the pill/applicator can be confirmed as to what it is as closely as possible by the medical officer. At the same time a questionnaire form should be filled out making sure the cadet knows what the drug is for and the correct dosage that should be taken. I agree that every measure should be taken to ensure the safety of cadets while self medicating.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 07:51:33 AM
I would suggest an inspection of medication, make sure that the medication has a legitimate prescription along with the inspection should be a drug book that is up to date so that the pill/applicator can be confirmed as to what it is as closely as possible by the medical officer.

Out of curiosity, how does one verify that the medication "has a legitimate prescription?"

Cadet:  "Sir, here is my bottle of erthromycin that I take for acne."

Senior: "Well, that sure looks like a prescription bottle to me.  Look, it has a child safety cap and everything.  And there is a doctor's name on it and pharmacy phone number, too.  Let me send you along to the medical officer (a podiatrist) who will look at the pill and decide if it looks like ethromycin or any one of the other 10,000 possible pills out there.  I hope she brought her PDR."

"It says here you should take it 'three times daily, with meals.'  So, cadet, how often should you be taking the pill?"

Cadet: "Three times daily, sir.  With Meals."


Senior:  "Fine, then, off you go."

What precisely constitutes a "meal"? The regulation doesn't say.

Quote from: Ned on December 23, 2010, 05:20:57 PM
Out of curiosity, how does one verify that the medication "has a legitimate prescription?"

The parents and unit CC sign the Form 31 which indicates that Johnny takes "x".  If Johnny shows up with "y", we start making calls.

If both the parents and the unit CC are going to commit fraud either by commission or negligence, there isn't much we can do about it,
but that is basically the same situation law enforcement is in during the initial check.

Prescription-y bottle with person's name, no reason to suspect otherwise, move along.

Quote from: Ned on December 23, 2010, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 07:51:33 AM
I would suggest an inspection of medication, make sure that the medication has a legitimate prescription along with the inspection should be a drug book that is up to date so that the pill/applicator can be confirmed as to what it is as closely as possible by the medical officer.

Out of curiosity, how does one verify that the medication "has a legitimate prescription?"

Cadet:  "Sir, here is my bottle of erthromycin that I take for acne."

Senior: "Well, that sure looks like a prescription bottle to me.  Look, it has a child safety cap and everything.  And there is a doctor's name on it and pharmacy phone number, too.  Let me send you along to the medical officer (a podiatrist) who will look at the pill and decide if it looks like ethromycin or any one of the other 10,000 possible pills out there.  I hope she brought her PDR."

"It says here you should take it 'three times daily, with meals.'  So, cadet, how often should you be taking the pill?"

Cadet: "Three times daily, sir.  With Meals."


Senior:  "Fine, then, off you go."

Really? Here is the post again.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 07:51:33 AM
I would suggest an inspection of medication, make sure that the medication has a legitimate prescription along with the inspection should be a drug book that is up to date so that the pill/applicator can be confirmed as to what it is as closely as possible by the medical officer. At the same time a questionnaire form should be filled out making sure the cadet knows what the drug is for and the correct dosage that should be taken. I agree that every measure should be taken to ensure the safety of cadets while self medicating.

Have you heard of "The Big Drug Book"? It is awesome and can be bought at Barnes and Noble or Borders and anyplace else that sells books. It tells you what pills look like what. How do you confirm what an active prescription is? It is so simple, just look at the pill bottle, it tells when the medication was prescribed and when the prescription is up, who prescribed the meds to who, and how it is to be taken. Why if you are making sure that a cadet knows how to take it would you read the bottle to him/her and then ask them to just regurgitate it to them? While you are reading the bottle, ask "How are you supposed to take this medication?" It is too simple to ensure the cadet has a current prescription and that they know how to take it correctly not to do it and do it right. I'm no doctor and even I know these things, why? Because I won't let my kids take medication that I am unfamiliar with.

By the way, not everything with a child proof cap is a prescription. It takes just a couple of seconds of reading.

No worries.

If all you really meant by "making sure the medication has a legitimate prescription" is to have a tactical officer or some other responsible CAP officer simply look at the bottle  to see if anything looks unusual, then that should work out fine.  Which was my point.

That kind of common-sense approach is a good thing, and happens at CAP activities all the time.  With or without additional the additional guidance provided by the regulation.

We can't go crazy with attempting to verify prescriptions with health care providers or spend hours staring at somebody's pills and squinting at one of 10,000 illustrations in the Big Drug Book or PDR as a matter of routine.

From the way the latter half of this thread reads you would think the medication issue was the only change to 52-16. If memory serves this is the inclusion of a change made by ICL months ago. 

Quote from: phirons on December 23, 2010, 08:05:55 PM
From the way the latter half of this thread reads you would think the medication issue was the only change to 52-16. If memory serves this is the inclusion of a change made by ICL months ago.

A year ago, actually, effective Jan 1 2010.

Quote from: phirons on December 23, 2010, 08:05:55 PM
From the way the latter half of this thread reads you would think the medication issue was the only change to 52-16. If memory serves this is the inclusion of a change made by ICL months ago. 

Part of the reason that this is probably the biggest item that pertains to safety. I think everyone can agree that we are safety minded people, it is one of the most important aspects of special activities and we know it. That is why this has been the main point of discussion lately.

Agreed, we can't be calling physicians and all that jumble, but we can do our best to ensure what our cadets have on them.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2010, 08:42:42 PM

Quote from: phirons on December 23, 2010, 08:05:55 PM
From the way the latter half of this thread reads you would think the medication issue was the only change to 52-16. If memory serves this is the inclusion of a change made by ICL months ago.

A year ago, actually, effective Jan 1 2010.

Just curious, what (if any) incidents have occurred since the ICL went into effect?

After all, it's been an entire encampment / NCSA cycle.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 09:19:26 PM
Agreed, we can't be calling physicians and all that jumble, but we can do our best to ensure what our cadets have on them.

I don't even think it would take a whole lot of verification. My latest prescription from the VA actually describes the medication, including what's marked on the pills themselves. So did the last bottle.

I don't find it real practical to have someone verifying. That's where you get into the funny concepts of what constitutes "possession." I find it practical for someone at the encampment to know a cadet is on meds, and what they are, but I don't think verifying physically each med is appropriate, and could potentially could cause some legal issues. Best to just have a list, and be done with it. No reason to create more work that isn't necessary.

A little thing that I found in the new 52-16 (which wasn't present in the 2006 version):

Quote8-7. Region Cadet Leadership Schools

a. Curriculum. Minimum curricula standards are found at capmembers.com/rcls.

Going to capmembers.com/rcls:

QuoteCurriculum -  RCLS curriculum is being developed with an eye towards equivalency with COS.  Curriculum will be posted here in 2011.

Does this mean that every RCLS from now on has to follow the standards set by National that are similar to COS? I was just wondering, with all the talk about a "new CLS" and using RCLS as an encampment feeder.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11453.0 - thread regarding the standards and using RCLS as an encampment feeder)

Quote from: onetimeoneplace on January 01, 2011, 03:08:04 AM
Does this mean that every RCLS from now on has to follow the standards set by National that are similar to COS? I was just wondering, with all the talk about a "new CLS" and using RCLS as an encampment feeder.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11453.0 - thread regarding the standards and using RCLS as an encampment feeder)

Yes.

I have a question for those who have issues with this regulation:

Where were you when this was put in Draft form and available for comments?

Did you offer your input through your chain of command your concerns about specific paragraphs?

This is why we have issues with most of our publications.  Most of us don't take the time to read the Draft form and review it for items of concern.

Quote from: caphornbuckle on January 01, 2011, 04:56:10 AM
I have a question for those who have issues with this regulation:

Where were you when this was put in Draft form and available for comments?

Did you offer your input through your chain of command your concerns about specific paragraphs?

This is why we have issues with most of our publications.  Most of us don't take the time to read the Draft form and review it for items of concern.

When they are put out in draft form for review, where do you find them at?

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 01, 2011, 05:46:52 PM

Quote from: caphornbuckle on January 01, 2011, 04:56:10 AM
I have a question for those who have issues with this regulation:

Where were you when this was put in Draft form and available for comments?

Did you offer your input through your chain of command your concerns about specific paragraphs?

This is why we have issues with most of our publications.  Most of us don't take the time to read the Draft form and review it for items of concern.

When they are put out in draft form for review, where do you find them at?

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/publications_for_comment.cfm

Right now 62-1 & 2 are sitting for comment.

Generally a notice is sent via the RSS feeds, posted on the blog, and emails sent via the chain (I was asked for comment directly).
In this case, 52-16 was open for comment officially in July, however the procedures regard meds were changed last fall at the board meeting, effective 1 Jan 2010.

When they start allowing all CAP members to submit comments on draft regulations directly to whoever at NHQ is coordinating the draft I will begin to believe that they are truly interested in receiving them.  Getting comments through the chain of command does not work and isn't necessary. 

If you're proposing to change a regulation, yes it should go through the chain, but review periods are there to catch minor mistakes or to reveal that somebody overlooked some major problem in the changes being proposed. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2011, 09:26:24 PM
When they start allowing all CAP members to submit comments on draft regulations directly to whoever at NHQ is coordinating the draft I will begin to believe that they are truly interested in receiving them.  Getting comments through the chain of command does not work and isn't necessary. 

Well, I guess I'm sorry your chain of command let you down, but I am here to tell you that CP, at least, is vitally ineterested in feedback on proposed reguations.  Really, really.  We know that the folks in the field know far more than we will ever- know about implementing the program at the local level.

We received dozens of comments of the draft 52-16 and formulated responses to each of them..(We incorporated some suggested changes and declined to make some of the suggested changes while stating why we should not make that particular suggested change.)

But don't confuse any intertia in your chain of commande with a lack of a sincere desire from input from your national CP crew.

Oh, I don't really doubt that the NHQ programs folks would be interested in getting comments, especially those that would save them some embarrassment, but they aren't part of the chain of command that the comments are supposed to go through.  Any comments they get are only the ones that interested commanders through about 4-5 levels bothered to pass along. 

As a great sage said recently in another thread about trying to get uniform change suggestions through the chain of command:

QuoteSo, practically speaking, anyone with a uniform idea would be best served by buttonholing the wing commander at a hospitality room rather than patiently submitting something through staff channels and waiting for feedback.

It shouldn't be that way of course.  But there it is.

Same way with draft regulation comments.