I think "Pain Management" is the last thing I need to go into, LMAO. Though, my mentor doctor, who I have worked with weekly and then on a daily basis for one month out of each year, is board certified in Pain Management. So I have encountered a lot of patients who are pain management issues and know how things need to be charted to be kosher with the DEA. So I am not completely ignorant of this issue.
Showing an indication and then the name, number, and amount of refills for a narcotic is not asking too much of a doctor.
Physicians that do pain management full time should understand that the DEA is going to be watching them as the potential for fraud and abuse is highest there.
Do you think filing a report on all abortions which included the name and phone number would be too much for a doctor? Or do you think that might violate doctor/patient confidentiality? My point is the government should not be in doctor/patient relationships at all, you seem to think it is justifiable as long as your personal morality agrees with it.
I take exception to you claiming that your opinion is the rule. This is a cause and effect issue. We both understand the effect. We disagree on the cause. You think doctors are stringent about prescribing narcs because they fear the DEA. I think they are stringent because over prescribing narcs is bad medicine that leads to universally bad outcomes.
You are free to do so. My position is consistent, and based on giving all patients privacy from government interference. I therefore see the DEA as the problem. Your is based on the psotion that some government interference in patient privacy is justifiable because, as you have pointed out to me, a small number of patients are addicts.
Frankly, if most people who tried to get pain meds were addicts you might have an argument, which is why I was giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier before you insisted that was not your position. I would still disagree with you, but I could see the basis of an argument based on the fact that more addicts try to get meds than people who actually need them.
*sigh*. I haven't demanded anything. This is, at heart, an academic issue. If you don't want to treat it as such, then fine. However, don't lambaste me for trying to elevate it from a matter of opinion to a matter of science.
To me pain is personal, just like it is to anyone who has really experienced it. I have had both shingles and kidney stones, and have neuralgia and paralysis from the shingles. You can talk about science all you want, just remember that patients are people, not case studies.
For the most part, the DEA is out of what is and is not proper treatment. Though, if you feel that prescribing narcotics to prevent someone from getting them on the street is a proper indication for their use, then perhaps you would get some heat from the DEA.
As you should. That's just boneheaded.
I did not say I agree with it, I just think that if a doctor and patient decide that, the government should not have a voice in the decision.
No it's not. You have no clue what my "moral position" is, thank you very much.
My position is that physicians should not contribute to harming their patients if they have the opportunity.
That means avoiding giving them addictive and potentially lethal medications if their are better alternatives.
I could give a shit less if someone wants to smoke pot for whatever reason (to include simply getting high). I resent medical providers being drug into the issue under the guise of "medical need" simply because people want to get high. Marijuania for anxiety? Give me a frigging break. Marijuania for cancer patients on Chemo or HIV patients on HAART to reduce nausea and stimulate appetite? I am all for that.
However, to avoid the stupidity of the people that want to simply get high and will invent new and fabulous indications that only marijuania can treat (in their opinion), I think they should just legalize it.
I can't argue with that. I will point out that, addiction is more a matter of the person than the drug. I have been in the hospital twice for pain management, the last time was for over a week. I got narcotics the entire time on both occasions, and left without a trace of withdrawal. I also took Vicodin 4 times a day every day for almost a month when I had shingles, I have a friend who got addicted after three days and not only had to go through withdrawal, he attends NA meetings to make sure he stays away from temptation. I hope he never needs treatment for acute pain again.
I am aware of the potential for addiction, I just think I am more typical than my friend.
That's your opinion. The issue of "who needs narcotics" is the obvious sticking point and if that was clear, there would be no need for debate.
The issue should be decided by a doctor, not the government.
No. At the same time, I would be negligent if I simply gave people what they wanted without consideration for the pros and cons of the issue.
Just a basic tenant of treatment.
If I present to you with kidney stones and you start examining my fingers for pinpricks I am going to demand a doctor that knows that my kidneys have nothing to do with my fingers.
Just saying.
