Vicodin used for cases of severe pain, not colds

I am writing in regards to the article entitled "Students prescribed Vicodin for colds" written by Sarah Stanton in the March 5 edition of the Daily Wildcat. I would like to correct errors in the story, and to present a different perspective regarding the use of this medication and the prescribing practices of the UA Campus Health Service.

Let me begin by addressing the claim that the medical staff of the Campus Health Service prescribes Vicodin for colds. None of our medical staff members prescribe Vicodin for colds, which are viral infections characterized by nasal symptoms, sore throat and a cough. Vicodin, as a narcotic pain reliever, is a very effective medication for the relief of severe pain. Some of our staff do prescribe this medication for students who are suffering from severe pain, particularly if it is not responding to other non-narcotic pain medications, such as can occur with the pain resulting from a severe infection of the tonsils. In this situation, Vicodin controls the pain and enables students to drink fluids. This practice helps keep many students from becoming dehydrated, and keeps them out of the emergency room. [Read article]

Remember last year when Michael Moore made his infamous Oscar speech? Among other things, he called President Bush a "fictitious president" in "fictitious times" over a booming mixture of applause and boos. Mr. Moore (just like anyone who criticized our president during that time - see the Dixie Chicks) faced an immense backlash and resentment from those who follow Dubya's orders like dogmatic law. [Read article]

Two years ago, student lobbyists pounded it hard to regents and administrators. "No tuition increase!" they exclaimed. That was nothing new. After all, students had rejected tuition increases for years.

But the context in which the tuition debate of 2002 was set was a bit more complicated - Sept. 11 and failing state and national economies resulted in major budget cuts to the university.

In April of that year, the students who fought for what they label a "zero percent tuition increase" were smeared by UA administrators after regents rejected President Peter Likins' relatively steep increase proposal and upped the cost by less than $100 to appease him. Administrators claimed that regents, under the influence of aggressive student lobbying, had damaged the university by denying the funds it needed to flourish. [Read article]