Okay, I was at a doctor appt. after 2 of my boys had positive strep tests. This was a couple of days later, and I'd had a low-grade fever the day before, and a sore patch developed in my throat. The doc told me he was going to prescribe antibiotics and not bother with a test because of the research indicating most people with family exposure who present with symptoms go on to develop strep, so he would prescribe them, [pause], so I offered "prophylactically", but he rejected it, saying, no, "just in case". So here's my question: "prophylactically", in my understanding, means as a preventive measure. I assume his objection was that I was presumed to be infected already, and therefore the treatment couldn't be preventive. Soooo, is there a word that means "just in case" because it probably is the case? Thanks in advance! :0)

(The word lest is similar to prophylactically.)

Quite a few years ago, I suffered an episode of rheumatic fever while serving in the Air Force in east-slope Colorado which had back then a high incident of RF. When I was cured, my doctors prescribed a daily dosage of penicillin as a prophylactic against a recurrence of RF or an occurrence of an upper respiratory infection for the duration of my active duty service. They also advised me that I should seek to obtain a post-discharge supply of the same for a minimum of six years. There was a divided opinion. The NY Medical Society recommended a lifetime prophylactic whereas the AMA recommended six years. The VA supplied me with the latter. I therefore took same for a total of nine years. The medication was generally effective, especially after my tonsils were removed about two years after the RF episode. They had become permanently enlarged and showed a susceptibility to infection in spite of the penicillin.

Sorry, I am not sure of the proper word for which you are searching although palliative might be appropriate.

I don't think palliative is quite the right word since it means 'relieving the symptoms without effecting a cure.' Twosleepy's condition was that of possibly having the infection and the doctor's plan seemed to be to cure it if it's there. The unasked question is whether one should trust a doctor who uses terms the layman can understand.

You have it exactly right, Fal. But I don't think he knew a word for "cure it if it's there", and neither do I! I am assuming you don't either, because you didn't offer one, so it looks like a goose chase so far... :0)

Well, I won't stir the witch's brew of the argument between homeopathy and allopathy, but since most of modern medicine is allopathic and a "cure" is usually associated with the relief or removal of the symptoms, it would seem to me that palliative might be an appropriate term although there may be a better one.

I ain't sayin' nothin', but, since "without effecting a cure" is part of the definition of palliative I mo assume that it's not the right word. I ain't sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Was he prescribing them to be taken immediately? If so, he was doing nothing more than treating a disease early based on a high probability of it's presence and the natural history.

Or was he providing a script, to be filled later if full "strep" symptoms developed? In this case I would use a term like "expectant" (though this often has connotations of a "wait and see" approach, with the expected - but not certain - outcome being death). It was only prophylactic in that it prevented another visit to the doctor.

Palliative, at least in the Canadian medical system, refers to comfort measures and symptom management in terminal illness. As far as I know strep throat is seldom fatal.