|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 27, 2019 19:17:21 GMT -8
A couple of years ago, a visiting nurse (this was during my brief stint back in our hotel room after first leaving a nursing home) gave me a prescription for (I think) hydrocodone. I was very nervous about the risk, though a powerful pain-killer was needed due to the pain from my leg ulcers. She told me that as long as didn't misuse them, taking them only for the pain, I would be safe.
As it happened, I needed 2 pills to put the pain at a reasonable level, and several times a day. (Eventually the pain would ease up.) Since my prescription advised a single pill up to 3 times a day, this was a problem, but I used them only twice a day (before the bandaging, and before going to bed) and didn't take them at all on days when my legs weren't bandaged. Combined with taking every other pain-killer we had, this worked somewhat.
Eventually my legs healed enough that I haven't needed pain-killers in well over a year, and only rarely used them for many months before that. Obviously I never got addicted despite heavy use at times. It helped that I tried my best to be careful.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 27, 2019 19:38:37 GMT -8
I think the only for the pain part is vital. My doctor in Singapore gave me Tramadol 50mg for stone pain with the instructions to take "one every four to six hours." I had an attack and took one, which did nothing, waited some time and took another which did nothing, waited some more time and took another which also did nothing. I took at least 3 or 4 and the pain did not go away. I got hold of my doctor and told him my situation and he was surprised that I had not had any relief, but did mention that is was sometimes the case that a person in extreme pain could be uneffected by a dose that would knock out someone not in pain.
I went to the hospital and they gave me a shot and told me not to worry as they had given me the strongest painkiller they had and it would last 6-8 hours. I was back in the hospital in slightly over an hour, as the effects of the painkiller only lasted that long.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 27, 2019 19:46:40 GMT -8
In principle, I agree but I don't find TV ads to be very informative. In fact, I find most ads to be deceptive, but that is another story.
I believe it is a major problem that people here are asking for more and more freedom (read license) but demanding more and more protection from the consequences of that freedom. It only seems to go one way.
As to doctors, too many appear to be like car mechanics. They are fine at the simple things, but are unable to diagnose problems where the symptoms could mean a number of different things. If the machine doesn't tell them the exact part which at fault, you may be in for many visits to the garage.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 27, 2019 21:02:06 GMT -8
I had similar problems, with the hydrocodone taking as much as an hour to work (which is why I took it that long before the bandaging or going to bed) and last a few hours. Fortunately, by the time the bedtime pills the pain declined sufficiently by the time it wore off.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 28, 2019 7:17:01 GMT -8
I think the long disclaimers (likely enforced by law and lawyers) at the end of TV ads for drugs are inherently deceptive. They talk so fast and say so much, it’s like all the fine print you must “agree” to when loading a piece of software. Nobody reads it. And I think because of the length of the disclaimers, they become completely meaningless.
So even if a drug company marketed “Opioid-All: The Mother of All Painkillers” with a 20 second disclaimer that simply repeated “May be addictive, May be addictive, May be addictive,” it wouldn’t matter. This is why I have a very hard time blaming Johnson & Johnson. I mean, with all the disclaimers they must give, wouldn’t they be right in thinking it’s not their problem if doctors and patients are abusing the drugs? Haven’t they already covered themselves legally?
Yes. Of course they are. And that’s the rat I smell. Let’s blame J&J. To me, it’s obscene that a drug company has to pay out a half billion dollars because people and doctors are abusing drugs. Okay, maybe it’s not quite that simple. Like I said, I don’t have all the facts. But because of the propensity for the media to hate drug companies and to never blame people for their own bad choices, I don’t think we’re going to get the real story. So we’re left to speculate.
But it's to the point where it's almost reflexive (and not bad policy) to suppose that the media, government, lawyers, etc. are lying to you. My reflex is that if all these people see J&J as bad, my starting point is that they are blameless unless proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 28, 2019 7:35:34 GMT -8
Jacob Sullum has an article on the Johnson & Johnson verdict and opioid addiction at Town Hall. As befits a libertarian with a focus on drug legalization, he opposes the verdict, and actually makes a good case. He argues that the percentage of opioid users becoming addicts is small compared with (e.g.) the percentage of alcohol consumers becoming addicts. This is especially true for those using them properly for the proper purpose, as we've discussed already. The link is:
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 28, 2019 10:13:03 GMT -8
They seem much saner in North Dakota.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 28, 2019 11:18:56 GMT -8
If that author's "facts" are correct, there is no doubt that the Oklahoma court decision is nonsense. If so, I don't see how it will not be challenged in a higher court.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Aug 28, 2019 11:49:24 GMT -8
I think Artler might agree with me in that I’m perfectly fine with drug companies advertising to people. This ought to be a free country. The balancing side to that is that if you misuse the drugs (assuming that they have been indeed labeled honestly, side effects, etc.), you have no right to sue the drug companies.Brad, indeed I do agree. The problem now is where do you stop listing side effects? One in a thousand, hundred thousand, million . . .There is an infinity of possibilities. George took an aspirin 10 years ago and his nose fell off-cause-effect or outlier?
If you watch the news during the old people's news hour the drug ads are almost nonstop. Each one starts with a disclaimer, "don't take this drug if you are allergic to it" Whatttttt? How do you know if you don't take the drug? Almost every ad lists side effects that are worse than the condition they cure. Eczema--the wonder drug will destroy your kidneys, cause flatulence, diaerra and make your nose fall off. Consult your doctor.
How about consult your physician before taking any drugs, and nothing else?
The duty to disclose cannot ever match the responsibility to make yourself knowledgeable about the drugs you voluntarily ingest. There will be errors, people will die, companies will be sued, doctors will be decertified. Somehow medicine will improve. Just as soon as we can get the doctors to put away the snake oil, smoke and feathers. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 28, 2019 12:25:43 GMT -8
Your question is pertinent considering that these days even the slightest chance of risk tends to be the fault of the companies, not the person. The way we are going now, soon peanut butter will require a prescription.
This is again pertinent. We see how regularly today the Progressives (and their subservient lackeys, including a great percentage of the Republican Party) pass judgement on events long passed according to their morals standards of today (which are ever-changing).
Ditto again. I claim that these disclaimers (like that voluminous word salad in a software license agreement that everyone just clicks on without reading) are unenforceable because they have been trivialized.
One suspects the drug companies are doing their utmost to cover their asses. But that disclaimer is all we should need.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 28, 2019 16:22:31 GMT -8
John R. Lott, Jr., who usually writes as an expert on gun issues, has an article at Town Hall on the Oklahoma verdict and the basis. It seems that an academic study found that where they marketed more opioids, there was more addiction and more overdose deaths. Of course, that's equivalent to saying that where there's more driving there are more traffic accidents and deaths. What counts is whether their marketing led to a higher percentage of users becoming addicted or overdosing. The link is:
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 28, 2019 19:01:37 GMT -8
This comment could be posted here or on the string for Selwyn's article on the El Paso shooting. I saw the video on Tucker Carlson tonight. Alex Berenson and Tucker discuss the effect drugs have on crime and mental health. Berenson has been spreading the word about this subject, for some time. I believe it was he who wrote a piece in Imprimus regarding the problem. Marijuana and mental health |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 28, 2019 19:04:50 GMT -8
An even better analogy might be, "the more I eat, the more weight I gain." Strange.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 29, 2019 7:53:16 GMT -8
Alex Berenson looks like a crazy doctor from a Mel Brooks film. His best point was when he said that we need: Disapproval of drug use. The problem is that marijuana has been de-stigmatized. It’s now seen as very cool. Only unhip fuddy-duddies oppose it. The best article I’ve read about this subject (and I can’t find it offhand) was titled something like “Tobacco 2.0.” Just like cigarettes, marijuana is promoted as a health benefit. Think of all those ridiculous old cigarette ads from the 40’s or 50’s.  The children of the 60’s are now running the place. Their poisonous ideology regarding drugs is the root cause of the “homeless” problem, for example. Rather than admitting that abuse of drugs and alcohol are bad, they simply turn the addicts into mascots and make it easy for them to stay in their addictions. That's some help. You need adults who are willing to be adults to meet a problem like this. And real adults understand the need for a healthy dose of Vitamin N: No. Instead, when people actually do go crazy on drugs, they’ll simply blame guns. How interesting that it turns out they they were right about “Reefer Madness.” |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 29, 2019 9:10:30 GMT -8
Exactly. Whether marijuana use should be banned or not, it certainly should be stigmatized -- and banning it is the easiest way to do so. As I once read, people don't rob banks because that's wrong, not because it's illegal -- but they know it's wrong because it's illegal.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 29, 2019 10:09:57 GMT -8
Good points.
|
|
