Talk:Suppository

'where it melts'

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)

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)

drugs?

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

and that's a shame.

AC 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture?

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)

Commonly used for

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)

(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)

(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)

"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 ruin veins, cause track marks. 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, otherwise you aren't going to get much an effect. 4.255.54.151 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And what was it?

"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)

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)

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)