Talk:Suppository

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bypassing the liver[edit]

This article misses a really crucial point about suppositories: adding a drug to the small intestine is the only part of the digestive track where the vascular system does not go via the liver. Therefore the drug is not metabolised by the liver. This means the dose from a suppository can often be a lower dose than one administered orally and passes into the body more quickly once the suppostitory has "melted" and the drug dissolved. -mad_macs 07:10, 21 September 2006 (BST)


'where it melts'[edit]

I don't think the word 'melts' is what should be used here -- but which word would be better? -Shai-kun 05:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolves?

I think dissolve is better. More encyclopedic.
Not more encyclopaedic, correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.235.152 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drugs?[edit]

there's no mention of hallucinogenic or opioid drugs being used suppository

and that's a shame.

AC 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture?[edit]

Would a "Suppositories in Popular Culture" section be appropriate or would it be inviting too much trouble? It seems like it should be a part due to the amount of jokes about them but I'm afraid to add it in.

I support this notion. As a contribution, in the episode The Deep South of Futurama, suppositories are a running joke. --Muna (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly used for[edit]

Is there a difference between the two last points on the list?

BTW what is meant by commonly? In these parts suppositories are never (AFAIK) used for anything systemic. The very idea that you could take e.g. a painkiller through your rectum seems ridiculous. I have heard (but have no reference) that they are common in Catholic countries and just about unknown in Protestant countries.

Klausok 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Taking a painkiller through your rectum seems ridiculous"; maybe to you, but it certainly avoids the bleeding stomach that comes with the ingestion of aspirin.
(2) "I have heard… that [suppositories] are common in Catholic countries and just about unknown in Protestant countries". Really? When have France, China, Egypt, India, Turkey, and Greece been Roman Catholic countries?
According to a survey quoted in our France article, 51% of French people identified as Catholic, and 3% as Protestant. This doesn't invalidate your overall argument because of the other countries mentioned, but France is most definitely far more Catholic than Protestant. 81.158.1.156 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Perhaps, if you read "Payer, L., "How Medical Practice Reflects National Culture", The Sciences, Vol.30, No.4, (July-August 1990), pp.38-42." you may get a better notion of the extent to which the delivery of medicine is culture bound.
(4) There are no known religious grounds for either the usage or non-usage of suppositories, in any of the world's major religions. 149.171.241.152 (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"e.g. a painkiller through your rectum seems ridiculous." ...There are harm reduction advisors who encourage drug addicts to plug heroin (by taking the needle out of the syringe with pliers) rather than shooting it... it lasts long, hits nearly as fast, and has extremely high bio-availability. Does not ruin veins, cause track marks, embolism, needn't be sterile, won't cause endocarditis or myriad other problems from IVing. Regarding other drugs the route skips first pass metabolism so anything liver toxic is bypassed, saves the lungs by not being smoked. It is a very viable route and many times overlooked. However with street drugs it should always be liquid administered with a non-needle syringe (dissolved into a liquid solution, be it cocaine or ketamine or tar heroin or methamphetamine, anything water soluble as most HCl street drugs are), otherwise you aren't going to get much an effect. 4.255.54.151 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what was it?[edit]

"Their research very clearly demonstrated that there was, indeed, a very good reason for the traditional "torpedo" shape." So what *was* the "very good reason"? 81.158.1.156 (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole section is worded stupidly. It doesn't need its own section; the information can just be included elsewhere. I bet someone put it in (no pun intended) for shits and giggles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.168.10 (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real gem: In 1991, Abd-El-Maeboud and his colleagues published a study in The Lancet[1] , based upon their investigation into whether there was some hidden and forgotten knowledge behind the traditional shape of a rectal suppository. Steven Spielberg presents .. Abd-El-Maeboud and the Hidden, Forgotten Knowledge of the Rectal Suppository? Switzpaw (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, so not merged. The discussion has been open for about 10 months. Snowman (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Hello to all! I am proposing a merge from the following articles into this article:[reply]

This is for the following reasons:

  • Information is duplicated between these two articles, and 'suppository' has a clear and defined meaning.
  • This knowledge shouldn't be obscured from readers of this article by virtue of being isolated in two separate articles.
  • The article could, if needs be, could be re-expanded at a later date.

Kind Regards, LT910001 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello to all! The reason I would not support the above proposed merger is that although there may be some duplication, delivery of rectal medication is not limited to suppositories and, in fact, rectal administration of liquid medications via such devices as the Macy Catheter (which article I am currently in process of writing) is a fast and effective alternative to suppositories. I will do my utmost to have this content ready to post ASAP.
With kindest regards and best intentions,
Julie Saeger Nierenberg (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following up again, the Rectal Medication article now is linked to the Macy Catheter article, recently published. I will expand on the role of such a device within Rectal Medication ASAP.

Thanks! Julie Saeger Nierenberg (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other types of Suppository[edit]

I propose changing the article to include two other types of suppositories: nasal and aural (nose and ears respectively) based on the book "Suppositories: rectal, vaginal, nasal, aural, urethral" by John Wyeth & Brother in 1886. However, these two types of suppositories aren't in much use today, as much more effective treatments are available (such as nasal sprays or aural drops). Nevertheless, they were in use at one point. -Dustyburrows 08:13, 30 August 2022 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suppository&oldid=1198896876"