Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is ALL kinds of doctors. Many will not EVER order narcotic pain relievers no matter how bad the patient's pain might be. Patients who have chronic pain problems are especially between a rock and a hard place. Often drug dealers are their only option. In some cases, when medication are obtained from drug dealers, the person can't afford to pay for very pricey pain pills, so they end up taking heroin, which is much less expensive.
It is not that doctors refuse to prescribe pain medications, it's that there are federal regulations that are so stringent that their hands are tied.
My husband has had a hip replacement and has ongoing neck and shoulder pain. He has a pain management doctor, and must drive to the doctors office to pick up a paper prescription, also needs to take pee tests like a common criminal.
It is not that doctors refuse to prescribe pain medications, it's that there are federal regulations that are so stringent that their hands are tied.
My husband has had a hip replacement and has ongoing neck and shoulder pain. He has a pain management doctor, and must drive to the doctors office to pick up a paper prescription, also needs to take pee tests like a common criminal.
"Like a common criminal" is not the way to look at it. That requirement is a reasonable measure to prevent abuse.
I think a lot has changed in the last 10 years. It was about 10 years ago that I had hernia surgery, they sent me home with a bottle of 30 pills (narcotics). I used only 8, leaving 22 which I could have sold on the street if I hadn't had a sense of integrity and had known where to go. It took me several years to use up the other 22 pills - an occasional headache, or a sprain, or whatever - one at a time. I wondered why they gave me so many - I suppose for the sake of convenience so I wouldn't have to be running back to them. And I also wonder how many I would get if I had the same surgery today.
How would they know your tolerance for pain? Many would need a 30 day supply.
I had surgery 3 weeks ago. I have a very high tolerance for pain and don't like taking such drugs anyway. I took 2 out of 30. Tylenol worked for me.
I told my doctor and she said she has had pain killers she has used that are 10 years old, and they are still good. The dates on RX are so they can sell more. I have 28 more, and no they aren't for sale.
Selling narco's is a federal offense that will get you jail time. My roof and chow are better than I get in prison.
I was going to a doctor who I guess does prescribe narco's. When he did my blood tests he would have me do a lab urine test, which my insurance did not cover. At $160.00 each time. I told him I took nothing and he found that out each time. Husband says Dr has no choice. So I switched doctors. I have better things to spend $160.00 twice a year.
I don't have any good answers, but I think that no matter how strongly you advocate for the therapeutic use of opioids for chronic pain the writing is on the wall, I think within a few years that just won't be an option unless you buy them on the street. I have a friend who has severe chronic pain and smokes weed, she said it's better than anything else she ever tried, so maybe that's an option? Biofeedback worked wonders for me, it's just a tool that is used to help you train your brain to tune out pain, but probably like everything else the success of that varies from one person to another.
And I don't think the use of NSAIDS is a death sentence, perhaps if you were going to take 800 mg of Ibuprofen every four hours for the next 10 years, or if you have existing liver damage..but for the most part I think it's pretty well established that you can take reasonable doses of them for a very long time without any fatal complications.
They are much worse than people realize. People think they are relatively benign, but acetaminophen (Tylenol) is well known for causing liver damage with ling term use or overuse (easy to do, as it is in many OTC formulations and people don't always realize they are taking it 2 and 3 times with cold meds, headache pills, etc. Tylenol is the leading cause of acute liver failure in this country now.
"Acetaminophen overdose is actually the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers across the US—more than 100,000 instances per year—and, each year, is responsible for: More than 56,000 emergency room visits. 2,600 hospitalizations. An estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure." http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-overdose.aspx
I actually asked for my pain pills to be a version that did not include acetaminophen.
They are much worse than people realize. People think they are relatively benign, but acetaminophen (Tylenol) is well known for causing liver damage with ling term use or overuse (easy to do, as it is in many OTC formulations and people don't always realize they are taking it 2 and 3 times with cold meds, headache pills, etc. Tylenol is the leading cause of acute liver failure in this country now.
"Acetaminophen overdose is actually the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers across the US—more than 100,000 instances per year—and, each year, is responsible for: More than 56,000 emergency room visits. 2,600 hospitalizations. An estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure."
that's true about tylenol but I didn't even consider it, I've never found it to be of any use for pain, not even a headache.
that's true about tylenol but I didn't even consider it, I've never found it to be of any use for pain, not even a headache.
I agree totally, but they marketed themselves so well they are now often the only choice in nursing homes and other health settings. I've had patient who were in rehab FOR liver disease, and even THEY will have Tylenol ordered for pain, it's that automatic to them to write it.
"Like a common criminal" is not the way to look at it. That requirement is a reasonable measure to prevent abuse.
In what way? What, in my pee, would tell you I shouldn't get pain relief prescribed to me?
Again, I had a great pain management doc who I told on the first visit that I smoke MJ, and never held that against me or changed how he dealt with me due to that (I asked him what happens when the pee test comes back positive, and he laughed and said "I'm supposed to give you a lecture on the evils of pot" but it never affected my prescription access (which again I used very responsibly for 8-10 months). With another doctor, it probably would have prevented me from getting the medicine I needed, but why in your opinion is that a good thing?
WHY should people have to allow themselves be searched from the inside out who have no history of prescription drug abuse?
Why is there no test I have to take to determine my abuse potential before I buy a bottle of booze??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
