All in the Name of $$$ Oxycontin Makers Pushing for FDA to Ok Use for SIX YEAR OLDS

People who have a legitimate need for opioid pain medicines often do not become addicted. Nurses often under-medicate patients because they have a (false) belief that people who are in pain are at risk of becoming addicted to these medicines. It's simply not true. Studies have shown that patients who are given patient-controlled analgesia pumps often receive less medicine than if they were on a set schedule for medications.

As for Oxycontin (oxycodone) being FDA approved for patients as young as six, I'm not entirely sure whether this is a good idea or not. Obviously, the manufacturer wants to receive more money. Ultimately, though, the responsibility comes down to the prescriber of the medication. If a pediatrician thinks that a child will benefit from this particular drug, then why not allow him/her to give it a go? I haven't heard anything about there being issues in finding adequate pain relief for children from the medications that are already available, but my specialty isn't pediatrics. When I was in schoool I had to give a crack baby (yes, this is a medical term) morphine because it was having withdrawals. The poor bugger was only a few days old.

The difficult thing about approving medications for children in most cases pharmaceutical companies aren't allowed to run trials on people under the age of 18.

reply to post by kabfighter

Studies have shown that patients who are given patient-controlled analgesia pumps often receive less medicine than if they were on a set schedule for medications.

I can believe that, but I think it is a psychosomatic relationship. If the patient is controlling the pain-reliever, then they have confidence in their ability to mitigate their own pain, and they are comfortable taking a little less. If the patient is not in control, then they have to hedge their worry against their pain, and take the max when they have an opportunity to do so. I bet a similar study could be done with starving people and food. When they don't have control over their own food, they probably binge, whereas a readily available supply allows them the confidence to eat less.

BUT, I do not think that study, or that phenomenon correlates to addiction problems. Many people that are now addicted to narcotics started off as legitimate patients. That legitimate need faded, but they can't stop taking the narcotics, because there are withdrawal symptoms. They never get past those withdrawals, instead they take ever-increasing amounts of the drug, due to their tolerance buildup, and then the withdrawal symptoms get worse and worse every time they attempt to stop.

The drugs are addictive, there is no doubt about that.

Originally posted by ColeYounger
reply to post by Destinyone

 

To re-state my opinion, I think it's wrong that a person who is suffering should have meds denied them because there's a bunch of people out there who are abusing the meds. I read a recent story of a man who committed suicide because of chronic pain. Doctors would not prescribe him pain meds because they were afraid they would get in trouble.

Can I re-state mine too then? Because it's similar to yours, only more realistic;

I think it's wrong that a person who is suffering only has a limited choice of (man made) meds because there's a bunch of people out there who want as much profit as possible. I think it's wrong that there are certain plants out there that can help with pain but they're illegal because supposedly people would abuse them, though nobody has ever died from them, unlike legal medication.

I read a recent story of people who have cancer and want access to a natural product that has been used for thousands of years for a multitude of purposes, including medical, but they can't, because big pharma and other industries are afraid of the effects on their profits. Instead, they are put to the ultimatum; use what we allow you to use, or die. If I ever get cancer, I'm not going to get half my body destroyed including my immune system, because that's supposedly what's best for me, it's not, and they know it, there's far better products out there that are kept from the public, but that's a different discussion.

I also think it's wrong that people would be prevented from using a certain legal med, but what I find even more wrong is that those people are constantly told that it's the only way, you suffer or you take those nice chemicals, while in reality, there are a great variety of plants that have helped people for as long as people have been looking for cures, but they are not profitable enough, it's easier to mix some chemicals in a factory and bottle them, than it is to grow organic plants and process them for medicinal use.

How do you think ancient man dealt with all kinds of symptoms? The fact that our healthcare is a lot better now doesn't mean it was horrible back then, I still have a booklet lying around here from my grandmother with a great list of plants and what symptoms they are used to treat. This used to work just fine, though not perfect, but that's what chemicals are there for imo, when natural doesn't work anymore, you can go to chemicals. Nowadays it's the other way around; tried everything mainstream healthcare has to offer? Well maybe go back to traditional ways. And they work, that's what I hate most, they work, if only people would be willing to invest some time, investigate, instead of driving to a pharmacy and getting the easiest to get painkillers.

BTW; I'm not implying you're against anything, just broadening the perspective, besides the whole discussion of "people should be able to take something against the pain" there is higher (pun not intended lol) discussion about whether it's right to give people chemical garbage when there are natural solutions. Those are not restricted to medical marijuana, the most everyday plants usually have proven medicinal uses.

Of course because they are pathetic people stealing and controlling your lives. Recommend it to my son and I will knock the doctor off his stool sideways and in to next week.

No surprise. Just recently big pharma was ordered to pay 3 billion for fraud.

GSK's sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations to paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours to a European pheasant hunt to tickets to Madonna concerts, and this is just to name a few," said Carmin M. Ortiz, U.S. attorney in Massachusetts.

For drugs that weren't even approved by the FDA

Link

This thread is full of speculation and anecdotes.

"I know... because I experienced.... I saw this..."

Large pharmaceutical companies assist in prolonging life to a far, far greater degree than they do with regards to ending life.

The reason that pain medication has been so prevalent in the news as of late is due to the fact that a majority of Americans are reaching an age in which pain medication is needed.
More is being prescribed because more is needed because more people are advanced in age and suffering from common pains associated with aging.

The study being done in the OP is a very good thing.
People should not be made to suffer pain simply because a vast minority of individuals abuse pain medication.
The most up to date data does not show that "opiate use creates addictive neural pathways in the brain".
That is a bunch of pseudo-science.

Psychologists currently approach the study of addiction by using the diathesis-stress model.
This model shows that organically based mental disorders have a genetic basis that is activated, more or less, through environmental exposure.
That does not mean that someone NOT genetically predisposed will NOT become dependent upon a substance; however, dependence and abuse are completely different behaviors.

If you want to know about opiates and addiction, then I can answer any and all questions.
And the answers will reflect scientific data.
They will not convey personal stories or misguided beliefs.

I see very little empirically based reasoning in this thread and a whole-lotta hysterical group psychology.

"Big Pharma" isn't out to get you paranoids.
"Big Pharma" wants to save your life.

When I was in schoool I had to give a crack baby (yes, this is a medical term) morphine because it was having withdrawals. The poor bugger was only a few days old.

This statement is a perfect example of the hysteria based mis-information found throughout this thread.

The "crack baby" myth is just that.... It is a MYTH.

And to top of this tripe, the last thing a medical professional would give to a baby high on crack...
Is MORPHINE.
Seriously people.
Take off your tin foil conspiracy hats and come back to reality.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Really?

Number of babies born addicted to prescription medications has TRIPLED over the past decade.

Not to mention the US is 128th in ranking on infant mortality. You really think crack babies are a myth? It might not be crack, it might just be zanax, or vicodin, but should an infant have to suffer for it?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

This is our fault. Florida had 97 of the top 100 Oxy prescribers about 3 years ago, and today we only have 14, and it is probably lower than that after last week's "Pill Street Blues" record bust!

So, with all those Oxy's not being prescribed, they have to now look elsewhere.

What kind of pain does a 6 year old need an Oxy for? I know I wrecked my bike, straddled the bar and split my boys, went head over the handlebars many times, and my Mom wouldn't even give me tylenol! Usually I got alcohol and iodine instead!!! On good days I might get a frozen bag of peas to put on my swollen peas.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where kids need strong pain medication, especially the terminally ill, or those battling leukemia, burn victims, reconstructive surgery (cleft pallet for example), and/or major injuries,.but there probably already are safer medications for them. It does reek of greed and not altruism; as we'd expect out of pharma right?

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Let me understand just because some people are predisposed to addiction and some people abuse a substance is not a good reason to keep it away from people that it could help. You think that people should have access to any medicine their doctor sees fit? Is this what you are saying? If so does it apply to phenethylamines, triptamines, and ethnobotanicals? Or is it just pharmaceuticals? And please don't tell me there is no scientific/medical evidence that these substance have any applications in medical treatment and or therapy.

Big pharma is not bad just out of control. They have become motivated by greed not any desire to heal. It's a business. EVERY business cares about make money and the bottom line they after all have shareholders to answer to. You can'y honestly tell me that big pharma hasn't killed, harmed, or maimed anyone they shouldn't have or that the FDA isn't in a VERY large part in their pocket.

Just trying to figure out where your coming from so I can properly consider what you are saying.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Take a look at the DSM-IV (the manual used by psychologists to diagnose mental disorders.

Not anywhere, NOT ANYWHERE, will you find the term addiction used to describe behavior.
Addiction is a pop psychology myth.

Yes, babies are born physically dependent upon opiates, but this is not the fault of pharmaceutical companies.

Does personal responsibility mean anything to you people?

As I said before, more opiates are in the market because more are needed for an aging population.
Blaming pharmaceutical companies is misguided and creates a dangerous slippery slope precedent.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


So drug addicted babies are a myth? REALLY? Care to back that up? I have seen the proof over and over again first hand. Why would there be laws pertaining to babies testing positive at birth and why would the state take these children and or imprison the mothers if it didn't happen. Is there a conspiracy afoot I am not aware of?

reply to post by kyviecaldges

Yes, babies are born physically dependent upon opiates, but this is not the fault of pharmaceutical companies.

Does personal responsibility mean anything to you people?

Where does personal responsibility fall into following the advice of a trusted professional with decades more experience than a young mother? The mother is supposed to ignore the advice of her doctor?

The reason these meds are more dangerous than illicit drugs, is because they come from trusted professionals and FDA approval. That is kind of the whole point of this thread isn't it? What thread have you been reading?

It is not irresponsible to go to a doctor, and then follow that doctor's advice, and that is exactly how some people end up dying.

Originally posted by Ladysophiaofsandoz
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Let me understand just because some people are predisposed to addiction and some people abuse a substance is not a good reason to keep it away from people that it could help. You think that people should have access to any medicine their doctor sees fit? Is this what you are saying? If so does it apply to phenethylamines, triptamines, and ethnobotanicals? Or is it just pharmaceuticals? And please don't tell me there is no scientific/medical evidence that these substance have any applications in medical treatment and or therapy.

Yes... People should be able to ingest whatever they wish.
And I thought that TIKHAL was an amazing book.
I also like to ride my bicycle, Hoffman style.

Big pharma is not bad just out of control. They have become motivated by greed not any desire to heal. It's a business. EVERY business cares about make money and the bottom line they after all have shareholders to answer to. You can'y honestly tell me that big pharma hasn't killed, harmed, or maimed anyone they shouldn't have or that the FDA isn't in a VERY large part in their pocket.

Just trying to figure out where your coming from so I can properly consider what you are saying.

"Big Pharma" is only doing what they are legally obligated to do.
They are a corporation that is legally obligated to make the largest profit for their shareholders.
If any blame should be placed, then place it upon a compliant political class and the idiots responsible for putting them in place.
Change the laws pertaining to corporate behavior and change the corporations.

Allopathic medicine is the future.
While it may not save everyone, and might at times even lead to death in a minority of cases, name something...
anything that can match its success rate.

Without death there is no life.

Originally posted by Ladysophiaofsandoz
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

So drug addicted babies are a myth? REALLY? Care to back that up? I have seen the proof over and over again first hand. Why would there be laws pertaining to babies testing positive at birth and why would the state take these children and or imprison the mothers if it didn't happen. Is there a conspiracy afoot I am not aware of?

Drug addiction is a myth.

The labels used by psychologists are abuse or dependent and they are used for a specific reason.

The term addiction is pop psychology and in no way clinical.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Where does personal responsibility fall into following the advice of a trusted professional with decades more experience than a young mother? The mother is supposed to ignore the advice of her doctor?

The reason these meds are more dangerous than illicit drugs, is because they come from trusted professionals and FDA approval. That is kind of the whole point of this thread isn't it? What thread have you been reading?

It is not irresponsible to go to a doctor, and then follow that doctor's advice, and that is exactly how some people end up dying.

Pregnant women are never advised to take opiate based medication.

Methinks that you engaged in a non-sequitur.

People do die from mixing medications, but it is mostly due to either doctor error or patient error (not being up front about all prescribed medications).

Once again, NOT the fault of the pharmaceutical companies.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I'm not blaming the pharmaceutical companies, I'm blaming doctor error, multiple doctor prescribing with drug interactions, and patients for sharing meds.

And doctors do prescribe narcotics to pregnant women, although it is ill-advised. If a women is already a long-term user of pain meds, then taking her off the meds while she is pregnant may have unintended complications. It is fairly common for pregnant women to be prescribed pain meds, and anti-depressants both.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Where does personal responsibility fall into following the advice of a trusted professional with decades more experience than a young mother? The mother is supposed to ignore the advice of her doctor?

The reason these meds are more dangerous than illicit drugs, is because they come from trusted professionals and FDA approval. That is kind of the whole point of this thread isn't it? What thread have you been reading?

It is not irresponsible to go to a doctor, and then follow that doctor's advice, and that is exactly how some people end up dying.

Pregnant women are never advised to take opiate based medication.

Methinks that you engaged in a non-sequitur.

People do die from mixing medications, but it is mostly due to either doctor error or patient error (not being up front about all prescribed medications).

Once again, NOT the fault of the pharmaceutical companies.

Do you own a lot of pharma stock or something....

How can you be so uninformed on what has been a social problem for ages.....


des

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Thanks for the reply. It's always good to know where someone is coming from to evaluate what it is they are saying.

If some portions of the population can't be trusted to control themselves no one can but thats not how it works.

God bless the Shulgins!