First of all cold sores can be on the lips or inside the mouth. So , no. you are NOT correct. The dentists treats all of these.
Second, your argument is a straw man. It's a classic straw man. It's legal for a PCP to prescribe Valtrex in patients with decreased renal function. It's just not wise. The same for a dentist. It's legal, just not wise.
Finally, I read the exact citations and your entire argument is the lips are not part of the mouth. That's amazing.
The question at hand is this plain and simple. Is a dentists legally allowed to prescribe an oral anti-viral, in this case Valtrex to treat Herpes Simplex of the mouth? The drug itself is irrelevant. A dentists can prescribe Amoxicillin for a dental infection, just not for otitis media. There is not a list of drugs dentists cannot prescribe. They cannot prescribe Lidex cream for poison ivy, but they can for Lichen plantis. They can prescribe oral steroids post surgical extractin not for joint inflammation.
You made a declarative statement that you cannot prove.
Why don't you Google laser treatment of Cold Sores and look at all the dentists nationwide that you laser to treat cold sores. They can laser them away, but not give drugs?
I do have a hard time when people don't read what I write or try to obfuscate the situation at hand.
I literally did not. Please re-read the post where I originally called out your poor logic.
Sorry, but you're being silly and presenting it as a position of authority.
You're demanding the text of the law that delineates whether or not a specific medication can be prescribed by a specialty, when such a thing doesn't exist for
any medication or profession outside of Optometry.
You're whining that I'm not participating correctly in a debate that only
you brought up, and that only you are interested in.
Furthermore, the original post I made, and the intent of the thread was whether or not it's in the scope of practice.
There are no black and white statements.
You dragged me into a "debate" trying to force me to provide an answer to a binary argument when that's never what my post set out to do.
Please re-read the posts I've made in the thread.
I attempted to answer the question you created, and now here we are.
You can get all worked up and demand that I post sections of the law, but that's because you're being intellectually lazy.
You know for a fact that they don't exist, and that determining scope of practice is, of course, never a black and white issue.
It's also perfectly legal for a dentist to sedate someone for in office procedures, but one only has to look at the disciplinary notices for the Dental boards to realize what a stupid idea it is.
Sure it's legal. Would I ever allow a dentist to sedate a family member? Absolutely not.
It may very well be legal for a dentist to write "Valtrex" on a prescription pad.
If they wrote it as a sidenote in a routine 6 month cleaning, you bet your booty I'm calling them and telling them it's not appropriate.
I'll put this in bold so you understand it.
Your logic is poor regarding "if it's legal, it's OK to fill." Even though something may be legal, or even a legal gray area, you have a duty to scrutinize unusual prescriptions as a pharmacist.
You can perform logical gymnastics to say that a viral infection unrelated to the teeth, jaws, or interior of the mouth is a dental problem, but the fact remains that there are complications, risks, and potential problems that a dentist will not understand or check for.
Throwing your hands up and saying "lol it's legal whatever" is no excuse.
