Slashdot Mirror


The Painkiller That Saves Money But Costs Lives

Hugh Pickens writes "Over 2,000 patients have died since 2003 in Washington State alone by accidentally overdosing on a commonly prescribed narcotic painkiller that costs less than a dollar a dose and the deaths are clustered predominately in places with lower incomes because Washington state has steered people with state-subsidized health care — Medicaid patients, injured workers and state employees — to methadone because the drug is cheap. Methadone belongs to a class of narcotic painkillers, called opioids, that includes OxyContin, fentanyl and morphine. Within that group, methadone accounts for less than 10 percent of the drugs prescribed — but more than half of the deaths and although Methadone works wonders for some patients, relieving chronic pain from throbbing backs to inflamed joints, the drug's unique properties make it unforgiving and sometimes lethal. 'Most painkillers, such as OxyContin, dissipate from the body within hours. Methadone can linger for days, pooling to a toxic reservoir that depresses the respiratory system,' write Michael J. Berens and Ken Armstrong. 'With little warning, patients fall asleep and don't wake up. Doctors call it the silent death.'"

76 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. it is harder to get high on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because of the way it works, junkies don't prefer it. so who cares if a bunch of people die needlessly, at least it prevents people from getting high. the drug war matters more.

    1. Re:it is harder to get high on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wait: You use it as a painkiller? Why do you do that? It's almost the worst opioid you could possibly use for that!

      There is no way that methadone should be used for anything other than treating opioid addiction.

    2. Re:it is harder to get high on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's prescribed as a painkiller more often than as a treatment. I'm a pharmacist and I go through methadone like mad and not on the prescriptions I fill is for addicition. I spoke to a pain doctor once who told me it was a cheaper alternative to OxyContin, which can run $600/month without insurance. Methadone runs about $30 a month without.

      Some patients with insurance won't take OxyContin because their copay is high.

    3. Re:it is harder to get high on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I disagree entirely. You have to select patients very carefully, but it works wonders on some. I'm a pharmacy resident at a mid-sized hospital, and I did a pain consult on a patient who was sedated and intubated in the ICU. Poor nurse was out of her mind giving him Dilaudid shots every 30 minutes so he wouldn't spike his BP and breathe against the ventilator (both signs of inadequate pain control). Wanted to give him a longer acting opioid for basal pain control. Can't use OxyContin or MSContin here cause you can't crush it to put it in a feeding tube. Guy was also morbidly obese so it would take several days for a Duragesic patch to saturate all the subcutaneous binding sites. Methadone turned out to be the perfect answer.

      Obviously you have to be extremely careful, but I don't have a problem with using methadone so long as the patient has good renal function, good hepatic function, good respiratory function (or a protected airway) and isn't taking any drugs that lengthen the QTc interval. This tends to rule out your older, sicker patients, and I suspect that most of the deaths from methadone toxicity happens in them.

      In the case specifically addressed in TFA, the fact that the patient was on both methadone and Oxy simultaneously is mind-boggling. Especially in the setting of sleep apnea. More blame rests on the prescriber than on the drug.

    4. Re:it is harder to get high on by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      Why not use diamorphine?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:it is harder to get high on by blockhouse · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why not use diamorphine?

      Too short of a duration of action. The purpose of using morphine as a replacement for OxyContin is because it's long acting, providing analgesia throughout the day. Diamorphine has a short, intense onset (which is why it's so addictive) and a similarly rapid cessation.

      The current regulatory environment in the US, where diamorphine is Schedule I, may also have something to do with it.

      (For those who are less pharmaceutically inclined, diamorphine = heroin.)

    6. Re:it is harder to get high on by blockhouse · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's prescribed as a painkiller more often than as a treatment. I'm a pharmacist and I go through methadone like mad and not on the prescriptions I fill is for addicition.

      That's because in order to use methadone to maintain addiction, both the prescriber and the dispensing pharmacy have to be specially licensed. I've never heard of a chain or independent community pharmacy licensed as such. Methadone clinics usually have the prescribers and the dispensary at the same site.

      Suboxone and the other buprenorphine-containing compounds have similar restrictions on the prescribers but not on the dispensing pharmacies. That's why you see DEA numbers starting with X on Suboxone scripts . . . it means the prescriber has been specifically licensed to manage opioid dependency.

    7. Re:it is harder to get high on by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

      (For those who are less pharmaceutically inclined, diamorphine = heroin.)

      (For those who are more C++98 inclined, diamorphine == heroin.)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    8. Re:it is harder to get high on by dmr001 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Methadone is actually a pretty good painkiller (http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/0401/p1353.html) when used with 3 times daily dosing (methadone for heroin/diamorphine addicts is usually dosed once daily). Methadone's risk is that it has a long half-life (up to 5 days), and no 1:1 dosing equivalency with (say) morphine, so if you aren't careful it can accumulate and cause respiratory drive suppression - you just stop breathing. It can also cause disturbances of cardiac rhythm (that is, screw up your natural pacemaker) in higher doses.

      I do not frequently prescribe methadone (I am a physician) because it's not often I have patients on chronic opioid medicine who I consider responsible enough to use it safely. And, I have seen inexperienced staff at pain specialty clinics nearly kill people a few times. But, if your drug plan won't cover sustained-release oxycodone or morphine (common until a few years ago in the US when morphine SR finally went generic) it's a viable alternative.

      For a list of "worst" opioid agonists in terms of effectiveness for pain, consider codeine and propoxyphene (as in Darvocet in the US), both of which don't seem to be more effective than acetaminophen/paracetamol.

    9. Re:it is harder to get high on by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem, I gather, is that the primary selection criterion being used here is "poor'. That's a fairly bad criterion for any medical decision.

      The sad part is that there is no good reason for any of the opiates to be terribly expensive. It doesn't help that our government would rather see chronic pain sufferers dead or screaming in agony rather than admit the war on drugs is a failure.

    10. Re:it is harder to get high on by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      diamorphine == heroin is an expression. 1 == 0 is also an expression.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    11. Re:it is harder to get high on by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      Sorry, you are correct.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    12. Re:it is harder to get high on by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Wait: You use it as a painkiller? Why do you do that? It's almost the worst opioid you could possibly use for that!

      There is no way that methadone should be used for anything other than treating opioid addiction.

      Incorrect. Probably most medications have multiple uses, and just because something is suited for A doesn't mean it can't also be used for B.

      This was a problem for me when moving to the US. Due to spinal injury, I needed a pain control method that was strong enough to affect nerve pain, fast acting enough to be used for acute pain, and would not leave me an addict.
      Buprenorphin is used for this in Europe. With pills dissoving under your tongue, it's as near instant relief as you can get without injections.
      But here in the US, it's only used for treating drug addicition. And the doctor's hands are tied by the insurance companies. If they don't want the doctors to administer class A substances for other use than the mandated ones, it won't happen.
      Metadone is the second best option. At least there is precedence here in the US to use it as a pain killer. But really, it doesn't kill the pain as much as it dulls you down to not give a shit about much, including pain. Not a perfect pain killer in other words.
      I'd love to get back to buprenorphin - 3-4 pills a year is all I need, but apparenlty that's too much to ask for cause of people like you who think that if it's used for treating addiction, it shouldn't be used against pain.

    13. Re:it is harder to get high on by DMFNR · · Score: 2

      Methadone is a great drug for chronic pain, but it's greatest strength is also it's greatest danger; the long duration of action. Standard methadone dosing for a chronic pain patient is lower doses a couple times a day, but if someone is not familiar with the drug is really easy to take a couple extra doses thinking it's not working when it really just takes a couple hours to kick in. A lot of times a shorter acting opiate like hydromorphone or oxycodone is prescribed as well to help out with that issue, which also adds quite a bit of danger. I don't have facts to back up my suspicious, but if I had to hazard a guess I would say a lot of the deaths are happening not to the pain patients or addicts receiving the methadone, but to the people it is being diverted to. A lot of people who use drugs recreationally aren't very clued up on what they're taking (just about every opiate in the world is either percocet or vicodin to these people), and methadone is a very easy drug to either dose too much thinking its not working or end up re-dosing or mixing other depressants later in the day when the high has started to fade (rather, the person has become acclimated to it) but the levels are still high in the body.

      The question is, what can we do about this? I honestly don't know. Many people in need of strong narcotic pain medication while doctors are forced to be overly conservative to save their own asses while at the same time people are getting introduced to the drugs far to early thanks to what I would consider over prescribing of weak narcotic opiates for simple injuries or dental procedures. Throw in some states where the laws are much more lax with pain clinics that advertise like bars in the back of the newspaper and people walk in with hundreds in cash and out with an opiate, a benzo, and a stimulant right next door to the annexed cash only pharmacy and you have a huge mess with narcotic drugs in America, and I'm sure things are similar elsewhere in the world as well. As a former addict who has been on a methadone program, and currently is on suboxone, I think I speak for both pain patients and people trying to get off opiods that the people who divert their medications are scum and are fucking things up for everyone. I can honestly say with a straight face that I believe in drug legalisation, and by that I don't mean a "Legalize It Man!" hippie. I mean across the board rights to but what you want in to your own body, but in this current situation with people being so uneducated and ignorant, the people selling their scripts to anyone on the street might as well be handing out loaded handguns. Just recently here in Wisconsin we had some wonderfully sensationalized stories about a few local teens who died with massive amounts of benzos and alcohol in their systems along with suboxone in their systems, and all of the blame was placed on suboxone and soon after calls to ban suboxone and concerned parents asking why doctors are handing out drugs to addicts filled the 10 o'clock news. Even worse, the more this stuff happens the more doctors will clamp down and the harder it will be for legitimate pain patients, a lot of whom are lucky to get just enough to lay in bed comfortably enough to get a couple hours of sleep, to get their medication.

      It's just a massively fucked up situation, since man discovered the poppy it's made a mess of everything in its path. If there is a god, he is a cruel soul for putting the very chemicals that make us feel our best in to a plant, and then letting his people become convinced that it is somehow a sin for us to take it.

    14. Re:it is harder to get high on by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 2

      The naloxone in suboxone does nothing it's there for marketing purposes. You can shoot suboxone just as easily as subutex. Trust me I know.

    15. Re:it is harder to get high on by NFN_NLN · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because the library author already took care of that detail. Put the cursor on diamorphine and press F3 (Eclipse):
      const Narcotic diamorphine = C21H23NO5;

      The chemical formula isn't specific enough. Different compounds can have the same chemical formula but entirely different structure and are known as isomers.

      It gets even more confusing when you have compounds that look the same on first glance but differ due to chirality.

    16. Re:it is harder to get high on by soundguy · · Score: 2

      The problem, I gather, is that the primary selection criterion being used here is "poor'. That's a fairly bad criterion for any medical decision.

      The sad part is that there is no good reason for any of the opiates to be terribly expensive. It doesn't help that our government would rather see chronic pain sufferers dead or screaming in agony rather than admit the war on drugs is a failure.

      This can't be said often enough. As far as I know, Oxycontin is nothing more than timed-release oxycodone. It must be on a new patent for the particular formulation, because the patent on the base medicine has long since expired. I'm currently dealing with a ruptured disk in my neck and just picked up a refill of generic oxycodone - 30 for $7.90. FWIW, a bottle of 30 cyclobenzaprine (generic form of Flexeril) is $4.00. It's criminal that we allow patents on trivial reformulations of drugs whose original patents expired years or decades ago, especially on basic essentials like opioid pain managers.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
  2. Re:Cynicism by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    No perchance, and it was idiotic to even say, since you have easily looked it up and see that its protection was basically stripped from a defeated Germany in 1947. Wikipedia is your friend, laziness is not.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  3. This is ridiculous by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As little as 100 years ago people were using perfectly legal opium compounds such as paregoric, with little or no social problems. The fact that people are dying and people are having their lives ruined by this failed "war on drugs" and the solutions are even worse than the problem just goes to show that government has no clue what it's doing.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:This is ridiculous by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd wager cost has nothing to do with it and that they're being prescribed methadone over Oxycontin because of the reputation Oxycontin has, and the doctors don't want to be associated with Oxycontin.

      And it's not that Oxycontin is a 'bad' medication, but it's gotten caught up in our moralistic, war on drugs mindset.

    2. Re:This is ridiculous by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Well if all they care about is cheap, why aren't they using morphine? Morphine is old as dirt so I seriously doubt there are patents for plain old morphine anymore, they have a version called MS Contin which is just a timed release formula, and if you are in pain MS Contin doesn't get you high it just blocks the pain. I have a relative that's been on it something like 25 years after a horrific car wreck messed his back and knees all up and the guy has been on the same dose all this time, never more, never less. Hell he even lives on the second floor of an apt building now and I honestly thought he'd be lucky to dress himself after the wreck.

      So if all they care about is cheap they should just use the natural stuff. Frankly the artificial drugs we cook up always seem to do more damage than the natural compounds and its obvious from TFA that this Methadone may be cheap but its also nasty.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have to post anonymously about this, as well as leave out some details due to a settlement I got because of the mess you describe.

      I have a problem with chronic kidney stones. My PCP eventually sent me to a pain clinic, where a doctor evaluated my current meds, my current needs, etc. I got a prescription for Oxycontin. Upon trying to fill this prescription, there were only two pharmacies that could fill it (several manufacturers were shut down due to illegal selling/distribution). One was at the pain clinic where I got the script, and the other was at CVS where I always filled all of my other prescriptions. The pharmacist was way way way beyond rude and pretty much called me a junky. I was absolutely furious. This man has made an extreme judgement of who I was because of my need for a powerful painkiller.

      I come to find out this particular person owns http://banoxycontin.com/. It was obvious this person had an agenda and I was just one of his targets to push it. I can't get anymore into the resolution of the situation, but rest assured I won.

      The "war on drugs" causes shit like this. It ends up just being a witch hunt and there are too many innocents that end up burning

    4. Re:This is ridiculous by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      I'm on about why the hell do we have to be using these products at all when opium tincture (which is what paregoric and laudanum are) hasn't been wiped from the face of the earth and is more or less harmless - proof? It was widely used before, and even withdrawn from the "market" without a revolution. Opioids have been demonized by people who have zero understanding of them. And I include many of my fellow physicians in this category. They have their uses in many situations from diarrhea to pain management.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:This is ridiculous by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry to hear about your chronic kidney stone problem. I had to pass kidney stones once, and it was the worst pain ever. In retrospect, it wasn't so bad once it was diagnosed and I got on the pain meds, but the period from the pain getting unbearable, through the ambulance ride, through waiting in the ER while they diagnosed the problem, to the first shot of painkiller finally taking effect, just felt like an eternity. I wouldn't wish that kind of pain on anybody.

    6. Re:This is ridiculous by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Oxycontin has its reputation for a reason - it's both one of the most effective painkillers available, and one of the most addictive.

      I know at least 2 people who became seriously addicted to oxycontin after having been prescribed it. Specifically, my uncle had severe pain due to complications of meningitis, and it was by far the most effective drug for him. Unfortunately, It doesn't take long to build up a psychological and physiological addiction to it. In the end, overcoming this was possibly worse overall than the meningitis...

    7. Re:This is ridiculous by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      Amazing how people always ignore R&D when talking about drug costs.

      That's because compared to marketing and lobbying, heavy discounts for major hospitals and the insurance companies which are not passed on to the rest of us, R&D comprise a relatively minor cost of doing business.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    8. Re:This is ridiculous by khipu · · Score: 2

      Yes, and "other opioids" are expensive because they are controlled. Opium used to be cheaper than alcohol until it was controlled.

      Having said that, methadone is not intrinsically "more lethal" than other opioids, it is simply more likely to be used incorrectly. But the property that makes it more likely to be used incorrectly (long half life, less addictive) also makes it useful in many situations.

  4. Possible FRAUD Alert by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't think I know anyone who takes pain drugs, so I have no personal knowledge. However, I found a short article about Methadone on the Seattle Times web site recently when I was looking at Google Health news. Even the summary seemed obviously suspicious, so I looked at the article.

    To me, that article and all the data to which the Slashdot story linked screamed incompetence or fraud. Now that I've read a little of the linked data, I realize the writers are at least partly incompetent. Possibly only whoever started them looking was engaged in fraud to sell more expensive drugs.

    I just discovered that I'm not the only one who thinks that. Short quotes, read the full comments:

    "It does not matter if you switch every body to oxycontin or oxycodone. These drugs are terrible at controlling pain and all are very dangerous."

    "... I have an issue with how the Seattle Times is drawing a correlation between poverty and methadone poisoning. ..."

    Possibly Methadone is more often given to people who have little education, and who are therefore more likely to overdose because they didn't understand the instructions, or because they have other issues that confuse them.

  5. Is it cost, or painkiller paranoia? by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doctors don't generally like to prescribe pain killers. They worry about addiction, they worry about the DEA auditing their prescribing habits and yanking their license, without which it's kind of hard to be a doctor.

    When they prescribe methadone, is it really out of cost, or have they grown so fearful of prescribing Oxycontin that somehow methadone seems like a reasonable alternative? And how many of those fears are medical/pharmacological, and how many are "if I prescribe Oxycontin I'll get in trouble" or "gee, there's a lot of press about Oxycontin, I shouldn't prescribe it"?

    1. Re:Is it cost, or painkiller paranoia? by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You raise a good point. I see a pain specialist because of tendon and back problems. Regular doctors are regularly audited, but pain specialists are super audited, and the DEA puts so much pressure on them, that they do NOT like to prescribe pain killers at all if they can help it. (Based on input from 3 different doctors here). They have to keep records beyond the norm, prove that other methods were tried first, etc. I had not had a physical last year, and he wouldn't re-up my prescription until I did. His reasons weren't my health, he flatly said that he could get in trouble. So now our national health policy is party "ruled" by the DEA, a bunch of fucking idiots with a faulty agenda and no real world experience in front line medicine....great.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Is it cost, or painkiller paranoia? by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Worse than that, I don't even think the DEA applies medical logic -- I think their logic is all about drug control. They could care less about whether clinically effective medicine is taking place, they just want fewer painkillers in civilian hands.

    3. Re:Is it cost, or painkiller paranoia? by snowgirl · · Score: 2

      Apparently, my mileage varies greatly from others. I had a UTI, and they gave me a narcotic. No questions asked, just "here's a week's supply". And since I had 100% coverage, I didn't even give them any cash. It felt weird getting narcotics for just a signature, but there you go.

      Later on, during recovery from some major surgery, I had my Oxycotin prescription renewed without question, or hassle for about 2 months (at one point, they later switched me to Vicodin, same stuff, just a higher Tylenol to narcotic ratio).

      Although, I suppose in the surgical instances, no DEA agent is ever going to question why you're giving a patient narcotics after surgery... and then in the first case, I was peeing blood, so... probably no reason to expect to be hassled about that as well. Then of course, none of these three were for chronic pain, but rather for acute pain, that was expected to subside relatively quickly.

      Come to think of it, after I had my big motorcycle crash, I think they gave me a short-term supply of narcotics as well, no questions asked. But then again, also not for chronic pain.

      Meh, I don't know. I suppose what I'm saying is that I've never had trouble getting any narcotics. In fact, beyond the signing for it, I don't think I've ever had any more hassle getting narcotics than getting any other prescription drug. But then as noted, all of it was short-term, and none of it chronic. Likewise, all of them were well justified pain prescriptions.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Is it cost, or painkiller paranoia? by sribe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When they prescribe methadone, is it really out of cost, or have they grown so fearful of prescribing Oxycontin that somehow methadone seems like a reasonable alternative? And how many of those fears are medical/pharmacological, and how many are "if I prescribe Oxycontin I'll get in trouble" or "gee, there's a lot of press about Oxycontin, I shouldn't prescribe it"?

      Well, let me just tell you: I am not an "addictive personality" and have never had any problems whatsoever like that; I was on Oxy for 1 week after shoulder surgery, and wow; I actually went through (mild) withdrawal--headaches, night sweats, chills... Of course for me there was no temptation to get more to ease those symptoms, instead my reaction was "wow, I sure wouldn't want to take this shit any longer".

      And oh yeah, I did feel really good on it, no question about that...

    5. Re:Is it cost, or painkiller paranoia? by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the other perspective, my brother is an ER doctor. He sees many drug-seekers every week. They'll come in claiming specious injuries (my neck hurts) and demand Oxycontin. Last week, some guy claimed that he never had Oxycontin before but needed it. A quick check revealed he had eight prescriptions already. And it's not just anecdotal evidence. Countering drug seeking behavior is one of the more important lessons ER doctors have to learn.

      What is anecdotal is my brother's disdain for pain management doctors. He calls most of them quacks who are legalized drug pushers. That's not to trivialize your experience or to denigrate your doctor, but apparently many of these dudes are making money pushing Oxycontin.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  6. Re:Accidental overdose? by Zironic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Overdose isn't when you take more then prescribed, it's when you take more then what your body can handle.

    As such most overdoses are accidental.

  7. Re:Accidental overdose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Easily. How can you accidentally do anything?

  8. Re:It even has its own tribute band by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I prefer the Crystal Method.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  9. Re:Accidental overdose? by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How can you accidently take more than the prescribed amount?
    Can't decipher the doctor handwriting?

    Forget you've taken it and take it again. Anyone can become distracted but the very old (prone to memory related illnesses) and very young (in the care of others) are particularly susceptible.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  10. Re:Accidental overdose? by Zironic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as I know, usually what happens is that while the drug is strong, it's not effective in treating chronic pain because the effectiveness is erratic.

    The patient will then take more of the drug, because they think that their dose is too low since it's not being effective, thus ending up overdosing themselves.

  11. Re:Accidental overdose? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article, it sounds like this is not a problem caused by cheap drugs but by piss-poor medical care. If a patient is given a specific form of Opioid which is known for stuff such as 'With little warning, patients fall asleep and don't wake up", and it does so frequently that they even gave this form of death the pet nickname, "silent death", then it does look like the only problem is that patients aren't monitored accordingly. To put it in other words, it does sound like they are putting the blame on a drug for a problem which is caused by incompetent medical staff which are routinely slacking off monitoring their patients and doing their rounds. Giving poor people sub-standard health care to the point of being considered neglect is a much more serious problem than providing cheap drugs.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  12. Are these all really "accidents" . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    . . . faced with a life full of incurable, chronic, unbearable pain . . . this "silent death" might seem like a more pleasant option for some folks.

    It would seem like an alternative for a doctor forbidden by law from assisting a patient requesting euthanasia. The doctor prescribes the medication and describes the risks. It is the patient's choice to take a lethal amount.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  13. I live with pain by Kilz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    18 years ago I messed up my back, 8 years ago I did it again. The second time around didnt have the results of the first. I live with constant pain while awake unless laying down.
    Pain is depressing, it ruins your attitude and life. I have learned to live with it, with pain pills to manage the pain. When sent to pain management every so often to get the pain medication adjusted methadone is always pushed, I am also low income. I have done a lot of study of pain drugs and will always tell the doctor that is one medication I want to avoid. At present I am on Percoset (oxycodone/acetaminophen). While it isnt as cheap as the methadone on my crappy insurance, my life is way more important than the $10 a month extra it costs me.
    But the problem may not be the drug itself but the idea that some people in pain have that they can avoid pain completely. This isnt always the case when you are on these types of medication. You can control pain, you can moderate pain. But if you think that if I take a pill or two extra it will get rid of it altogether you are on a slippery slope. My brother tried that, he ended up taking more and more pills because over time your body starts resisting them. Thats where the danger lies. You take so many that you end up killing yourself by overdose, like my brother did at 36.

    --
    I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
    1. Re:I live with pain by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You just illustrate the problem with the war on drugs. You're taking acetaminophen. The only reason it is in the pills is to kill you if you dare to take too much. They could either prescribe the oxycodone on its own or in combination with a safer NSAID and it would only be safer and more effective.

      Too many painkillers are designed with a LACK of safety being a design criterion - all because we'd rather kill people who get the dosing wrong rather than risk somebody getting high.

  14. Re:Accidental overdose? by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ritalin used to be the same size and color as methadone until one pharmacist accidentally put Methadone in some kids prescription of Ritalin. No one could figure out what was wrong with the kid, even as far as making the kid take more of it. The kid died. That's how you accidentally overdose.

    --
    I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
  15. Do you have poor reading comprehension? by arcite · · Score: 2

    The key point of the linked article was not that those who were given the drug overdose because they have less education and cannot read the medical instructions, but that they are given the drug because it all they can afford given the status of their medicare. Poverty does not discriminate between those who are educated and those who are not. We shouldn't blame the victim, blame the doctors and the insurance companies.

    1. Re:Do you have poor reading comprehension? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Informative
      Poverty does not discriminate between those who are educated and those who are not.

      Maybe not on your planet, but here on earth, educated people have a much better chance of making money, and people with money are likely to get a better education. People with poor reading skills, or other problems with communication are likely to be on very low incomes all their lives.

      I acknowledge that educated people can be poor whether short or long term, but they are not the same boat at all.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Do you have poor reading comprehension? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just bought a 50-pack of Ibuprofen 600 for 5€ (the same price that every drug costs) and a 30-pack of Omeprazol for 0€ (unless it's free ;), thanks to my health insurance which is paid by a tax going off of my salary.
      And if I lose my job, there is a government agency that pays for it no matter how long I'm without a job. (Yes, they push you into getting a job and send you job offers. But there is nothing wrong with that.)
      I can go to the doctor or hospital as often as I want and I get what's necessary. It's not perfect, but for a couple of € more a month, I get premium healthcare.

      Problem, America? :D

  16. Re:Accidental overdose? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2

    I think you will find there is no law against stupidity. In fact, the truly stupid get an award named after a famous scientist - its called the "Darwin Award".

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  17. Re:Accidental overdose? by moortak · · Score: 2

    Or perhaps people people on high doses of opiates. My wife was on a very heavy dose of Oxycontin for a long time and there were more than a few occasions wherre she wasn't sure if she taken her pills yet. We always played it safe and held off when there was doubt, but there were a few occasions where I had to stop her because she was sure she hadn't taken it. Large doses of these rugs don't exactly leave you clear headed.

    --
    Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  18. Re:Well, pain killer, lol by subreality · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Basically instead of letting junkies do crimes to get their hand at illegal drugs, let's doctors prescribe it, with the official "goal" of getting the junkie some time in the far future clean).

    And it works! If you give a junkie a reliable, free supply of opiates, they quit the cycle of binging then stealing things when they run out, are generally able to function in society, and gradually wean themselves off. It is more effective than any other treatment.

    Methadone is particularly effective because for this because it's very long-acting. It doesn't provide a reward rush when you take it, and it doesn't crash fast leaving them desperately craving.

    they are forced to go in daily to the pharmacy and consume it on site.

    Sure. Heroin users are used to gauging their dose by the immediate response. Methadone is really slow, so they think they didn't take enough and take more, only to end up overdosing when it hits. For non-addiction prescriptions they just give you a 30-day supply.

    And using heavy addiction inducing drugs as a general pain killer medication is not sound policy

    What would you suggest for severe pain? Advil isn't going to do it.

  19. The Republican Face of Future Medecine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is more of this. Republicans want to turn Medicaid into a block grant program to states, with eroding value because payments won't keep up with inflation. States, squeezed to do more with less, will continue to do the cheap thing instead of the right thing for the poorest, most vulnerable (those with no cash to buy influence), and the poor will suffer and die in a greater and growing proportion to the rest of us.
     
    They'll do the same thing to Medicare. So keep it up, poor and middle class, keep voting directly against your own economic interests, and watch your mortality rates soar.

    1. Re:The Republican Face of Future Medecine... by Bill+Dog · · Score: 2

      And that's because only the lower and upper classes have advocates for them in govt.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
  20. Re:Accidental overdose? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've never been in serious pain then.

    Even a perfect health 20 year old in a scale of 1 to 10, a 10 in pain will not only forget they took a painkiller, but will want the pain to subside so badly that taking another one is certainly a thought process they go through.

    Stick a railroad spike in your head and then pour salt and lime juice on it. Then tell me you will sit there and remember you took a pain pill 30 minutes ago.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  21. We have money for bombs, but not people. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And, what's more, there are pieces of shit who advocate even canceling what little we give to the unfortunate.

    figures why the world is STILL deep in shit in godfrigging 21st century.

  22. Re:Heroin substitute. by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We use it like that here in the US, but thanks to our Puritanical roots, we frequently see it used only "unofficially" in that capacity.

    We have tons of rules regarding where methadone clinics can go, how many people they can serve, under what conditions people can use it, how long, etc. So you end up seeing a lot of methadone prescribed for "chronic pain", despite the fact that it really kinda sucks for the whole "pain management" thing that opiates normally excel at.

    Really, it does one and only thing well - It keeps people from going into withdrawal.

    So basically, when you see a cluster of poor minorities with loq education OD'ing on this stuff, it doesn't mean their doctors have failed, it means a not-quite-ex-addict tried to get high on it and learned the hard way that it doesn't work very well for that, either.

  23. Re:Accidental overdose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You said the kid died. Nobody died.

  24. Both Major Parties' Face of Future Medicine... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Washington State is controlled by Democrats. The majority of both houses of the legislature there are Democrats, as is the current governor and the last two governors before her. I expect, though, that you're too busy hating Republicans to recognize the Democrats are no different.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    1. Re:Both Major Parties' Face of Future Medicine... by Moryath · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes but the policy was put in place during a time when the Republicans controlled 100% of the federal legislative line (House, Senate, Congress) and were screwing with the funding that comes from Medicaid/Medicare, forcing states to try to do precisely this.

      And it's not just Washington state, this is happening across the nation. Where I live, public medical care (which my grandmother is on) REFUSES to pay for a prescribed non-generic medication if there is a "generic alternative" available, even if her doctor's specifically prescribed the non-generic due to previous reactions to the generic or the generic not being effective in the patient's case.

      So yes, I blame the Republicans. They were in charge federally, they're the ones on the "cut costs cut costs cut costs we don't give a fuck about human lives" bandwagon. You think what Washington State has right now is bad, imagine what it'll be like when these retarded motherfuckers pass something like the "Ryan Plan" where everyone has to hunt for private insurance and hope to god that they don't have a preexisting condition that'll prevent them from getting it.

    2. Re:Both Major Parties' Face of Future Medicine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The hell with all of you. This thing isn't a partisan issue, though historically the Republicans have been the biggest proponents of the War On Drugs (TM), it is completely true that Democrats have not done much of anything to do away with it. Partly that's because anybody who does anything contrary to what police, prosecutors, judges, and the private prison system wants are immediately subjected to a well-financed publicity barrage calling them "soft on crime" (unless, that is, the crime is that of stealing money from poor and middle class people through banking fraud, but I digress...) Partly it's because most actual Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and profit-driven as their Republican counterparts, even if those values aren't the same as their supporters. In the US we have a choice between "ultra right-wing" and "mildly right-wing packaged as 'liberal' for political purposes" when it comes to electing people these days.

      It is because of both Democrats and Republicans that I have to have a record made with the DEA every time I want to buy some damned cold medicine, Obama has not told his so-called Justice Department to shut up about medical marijuana--continuing a harassment policy began by his Republican predecessor. There are no choices in politicians these days, only marketing.

      The poster who said that it's more important to prevent people from getting high than it is to prevent them from dying these days is spot on. There is something else though: if this is to save money, it is because sufficient money is not provided for the program. Republicans more than Democrats (other than the now-decimated Blue Dogs) oppose properly funding health initiatives, and they love means-testing them. Why? Because it's easier to cut a program which serves poor people in this country than it is to cut a program that serves everyone. That's pretty much their irrational hatred of Medicare and Social Security in a nutshell by the way. The only thing Republicans wanted to fund with Medicare is the prescription drug "benefit", which was entirely their idea and which contains a prohibition against negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. Therefore, it's a giveaway of tax money to large corporations--a Republican specialty. However, do you hear Democrats calling them out on it loud and clear? No? Why not? Everyone needs to start asking questions like that.

    3. Re:Both Major Parties' Face of Future Medicine... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2

      The only thing Republicans wanted to fund with Medicare is the prescription drug "benefit", which was entirely their idea and which contains a prohibition against negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. Therefore, it's a giveaway of tax money to large corporations--a Republican specialty. However, do you hear Democrats calling them out on it loud and clear? No? Why not? Everyone needs to start asking questions like that.

      That's actually really easy to answer: your assumption that corporatism is a Republican specialty doesn't hold water. The Democrats are just as bad.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    4. Re:Both Major Parties' Face of Future Medicine... by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Therefore, it's a giveaway of tax money to large corporations--a Republican specialty. However, do you hear Democrats calling them out on it loud and clear? No? Why not? Everyone needs to start asking questions like that.

      The largest giveaway to large corporations in the history of the world was signed into United States law with a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate, and a Democrat President. Only a single Republican, in both House and Senate combined, had voted for the bill.

      It was called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a name that appeals to emotion.

      The Republicans do call out corporate give-aways, but the heart-string yanking Democrats have bamboozled everyone into believing that the Republicans are the #1 offenders, and oh.. they are rich racists too. More than one Republican tried to stop the government-funded housing bubble years before it exploded.. they (such as McCain and Paul) were called racists right there on the floors of both House and Senate by Democrats (such as Frank and Waters) when they tried.

      If the obscene buying of Democrat votes as the Health Care bill ballooned into thousands of pages didn't convince you, nothing fucking will.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Both Major Parties' Face of Future Medicine... by colinrichardday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it were Republicans in power, folks on the right would be beating the drum of fiscal responsibility.

      As they did during the Bush 43 administration?

    6. Re:Both Major Parties' Face of Future Medicine... by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Wow, you have a way with history.

      Yes. Accuracy.

      The subprime lending bubble (2008 recession) was not the brainchild of Democrats, but rather was directly caused by systematic deregulation and removal of banking financial oversight by each Republican administration starting with President Reagan.

      Thats what the Democrats told you.

      2001: Bush Administration asks congress to look into heavier regulations, stating that they are a "potential problem, financial trouble could cause strong financial repercussions in financial markets"

      2003: Bush Administration pushed hard for a new federal agency to regulate and supervise fannie and freddie, stating "We need a strong regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities." The Democrats, in committee led by Frank (D), responds "Fannie and freddie are not in a crisis" and further says that the federal government should be encouraging even more lending by the GSE's, and "The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially" -- the Democrats blocked the legislation.

      2004: Royce (R) calls for "a new regulatory structure for fannie, freddie, and the federal home loan banks." Clay (D) responds by calling the proposal a "political lynching" (referring to the fannie scandal) and that issues with fannie and freddie have been addressed in other legislation. Shays (R) then states "I realized that fannie and freddie wouldn't even come under it. They weren't under the 34 act. They weren't under the 33 act. They play by their own rules and I am tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of fannie."

      2005: Alan Greenspan states "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." and "If we fail to see new GSE regulation we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Frank (R) states on the House floor "you are not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble."

      2006: John McCain (R) sponsors legislation pushing for regulation, stating on the Senate floor "for years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs fannie and freddie, and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. The GSE's need to be reformed without delay." That Bill was voted on by the senate banking committee, a party-line vote with 100% of the Democrats voting against it.

      The question you should be asking yourself is how you ended up so ignorant about the largest financial melt-down in 80 years.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:Both Major Parties' Face of Future Medicine... by catmistake · · Score: 2

      Alright, Rockcoon, challenge accepted. I am going to show with the facts in this post that you are both stubornly stupid, and unabashedly dishonest.

      The Republicans tried to do something about it the whole way while the Democrats prevented anything from being done about it the whole way.

      Yeah... that's complete bullshit. Sure... there was the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (94), which directed the Federal Reserve to issue regulations of mortgages, but Greenspan refused to use it. Greenspan has ever been against regulation in any form (again... my mind boggles why you mentioned him in a previous post as though it supported your falicious arguments).

      Why are you trying to claim that the Republicans are to blame for deregulation when the Democrats were nearly unanimously in favor of the deregulation that you are blaming on the Republicans?

      Complete lie wrapped in a question... nice work. But wow... you have it exactly backwards, retard.

      My guess is that you really didnt know that the Democrats were gung-ho in favor if it because while they were nearly unanimously voting for the deregulation

      Ah. Another flat lie. You really have a pliable relationship with the truth, don't you. Maybe if you keep repeating lies... it will actually change the past! Dipshit... that's not how it works... hundreds of millions of people already know the truth. You can attempt to rewrite history, but any fact checking will reveal your statements to be complete dogshit.

      The fact remains that the Republicans repeatedly tried to regulate fannie and freddie from 2001

      Again... regulating these firms by then would have done nothing to stop the recession, which was being brought on by banks and their insistence that derivatives not be regulated. ÂThe roots of the recession began in the 1980's under the Reagan Administration. Not sure if you are aware, but Reagan was Republican, and while Congress at the time was split about equally, he had a VERY strong conservative administration. The only thing that kept Reagan's debt increases in check was the Democratic House.

      Here's the basic line of how we ended up with our dicks handed to us in 2008. In 1981, President Reagan appointed Donald Reagan (Meryl Lynch) to be his Treasury Secretary. The Reagan administration, supported by Wall Steet economists and financial lobbyists, started Âa 30 year period of financial deregulation. By 82, the Reagan administration had deregulated savings and loan companies, allowing them to make risky investments with their customers' money. By 1990, hundreds of savings and loan companies had failed. This cost taxpayers $124 BILLION.

      Alan Greenspan is on record all over the 1980's in support of the deregulation and allowing these S&L's to make the risky investments. Reagan subsequently appointed Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve, and this move was repeated by Bush1 and Clinton. Under Clinton, Greenspan continued the deregulation. Clinton's adminstration, naively trusting Greenspan's expertise (typical Democrat shit), allowed the finanical sector grow into just a few massive companies, where if any one failed, we'd all be in trouble.

      You remember all the scandals in the late 90's early 00's with the cooking of books, defrauding of customers... $100BILLION of drug money funneled out of Mexico by Citibank... Fannie Mae overstated their earnings between 98 and 03 by $10BILLION.... you think there's ANY support for Democrats from those guys? No... they were propping up Republicans that shared their interest.

      Democrats share blame as well, but its always the same thing with Democrats... always being bamboozled by Republicans, and can't get their shit together, even when they control both houses of Congress. To say Democrats helped cause the recession because they did nothing to stop it is like saying a witness is as morally responsible as a murderer because the witness didn't s

  25. Bring on the doctor blame.... by RobinEggs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doctors are overpaid

    Can we please stop this shit? Blaming doctors doesn't help you, and they are generally not overpaid. For the length and stress of their training, the debt they incur, and the difficult lifestyle many specialties must endure permanently, most doctors are actually underpaid - in overall salary, in compensation per hour, or both.

    I know primary care physicians who've been forced quit the business after 30 years and had to go work somewhere else. How does a doctor who can't afford to be a doctor, and doesn't have enough savings to retire after 30 years, fit with your ignorant screed that doctors are overpaid?

    I also know surgeons, many of whom do make $300,000 a year, and I've never seen one of them sit still for more than 15 minutes, to watch a movie or lecture, without passing out. They work a minimum of 60 hours a week and constantly get paged for surgery in the middle of the night, whether or not they're actually 'on call'.

    So many types of doctor make so little that people are quitting left and right, while med students refuse to even consider the specialty, and many other types work so many hours with such a poor quality of life that their compensation per hour (not to mention per 3 am emergency call) makes engineering and business look like much better careers.

    Many doctors are underpaid; many others are overpaid but massively overworked and overstressed. The cross-section of doctors who are both overpaid and live comfortable lifestyles is much, much smaller than you think.

  26. methadone is very useful in managing chronic pain by ridgecritter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Methadone's pharmacokinetics give it a long half-life, and therefore a long duration of action. This is an asset in managing chronic pain from cancer and some other diseases. Methadone has much less tendency to lose its analgesic effect through habituation. Morphine, for example, while an effective pain reliever due to its action on the mu-opioid receptor, has a metabolite that acutally upregulates perception of pain due to action on the NMDA system. This latter effect probably accounts for most of the often-observed dose escalation needed to maintain effective analgesia in patients treated with morphine. The primary danger of methadone is that physicians who are unaware of its comparitively slow pharmacokinetics overdose their patients because they escalate the dose too fast. It is critical to make changes (either increase or decrease) in methadone dosage *slowly* - when that is done, the drug can provide chronic pain relief with a much better combination of safety and long-term effectiveness than many of the other opiates. As always, ignorance seems to be the most deadly disease.

  27. You deserve what you get... by RobinEggs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe the number of comments here about doctors being assholes, overpaid, incompetent, etc. You ungrateful, ignorant people need to wake up and realize that doctors are just as miserable under this system as the rest of you.

    First, doctors hate the most expensive parts of medicine even more than you do; they'd be ecstatic to see that business go away. Patients incur as much as half of their lifetime medical costs in the last six months or year of their life. Doctors who know it's simply time for someone to die are forced to keep them alive for a few last weeks or months by whining families who can't accept death and by stupid laws that require extreme intervention to the very end. Many people won't sign DNR orders until they've already hung on far too long, if ever; the families rarely sign them for someone too far gone to sign themselves. It's gotten so bad there's even a phenomenon called the Silent Code, when the physician running an emergency resuscitation tacitly lets a terminal and hopeless patient slip away; they walk the line between honoring laws / families' wishes and the Hippocratic duty to do no harm by not prolonging suffering. Most doctors wish that palliative care and letting people go at their time could be official; a significant minority favor outright assisted suicide. Those brave enough to take some action now do things like silent codes. How does risking your license and reducing your billable hours by letting a patient die display the kind of greedy, insensitive behavior you people seem to think almost all doctors display?

    And as for the money, doctors as a whole are not overpaid; doctors may average almost $200,000 a year, and the existence of specialist surgeons who make $700,000 a year makes it easy to assume they're all overpaid, but a complete statistical look at doctor's salaries - one that includes median, mode, and spread indicators- will tell you that the typical salary is pretty fair for a field that involves a minimum of 11 years higher education (often stretching past 15), $150,000+ in educational debt, and usually takes a lot more than 40 hours a week.

    So some doctors are overpaid, and some doctors are callous. Show me a profession with neither of those problems. The majority of doctors are paid no more than a fair wage (or even not enough), care deeply about their patients, hate the waste and legal bullshit of medicine much more than you do, and are really tired of taking shit from people who think they like the system this way or got into medicine for the money.

    The longer you assholes complain about doctors being stupid or only caring about money, the more stupid pricks who only care about the money will be the only ones willing to go to medical school. That's already starting, in my opinion. Enjoy reaping what you've sown.

    1. Re:You deserve what you get... by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      Mod up.

      A coworker once relayed how her husband, working hospital IT, was regularly frustrated by doctors (specifically some surgeons) kept having to ask stuff about their computers, and how is it very smart and intelligent people making over $100,000 couldn't figure out such simple concepts?

      She probably thought that as a computer geek myself I'd be completely sympathetic to this. She was floored when I said I'd complain about these surgeons not getting technology, if IT people were able to perform an appendectomy.

  28. I don't buy it by tgibbs · · Score: 5, Informative

    In terms of pharmacodynamics, methadone is a garden variety opiate. It has two major distinctions: it has good oral bioavailability, and it is long-acting (i.e. it has slow pharmacokinetics). These are major advantages for people with chronic pain. Morphine has poor oral activity, and also wears off fast. This makes it good for intravenous infusion in a hospital setting, but terrible for patients with severe chronic pain. One aspect of opiate analgesia is that once the pain "breaks through," it is hard to knock it down again. Opiates work best for pain relief if blood levels are kept reasonably constant. So with a short acting opiate, patients have to be constantly popping pills. A long-acting opiate makes it possible for a patient with chronic pain to live something approaching a normal life.

    Respiratory depression by opiates tracks very well with pain relief, so it is not plausible that the respiratory depression would greatly outlast the pain relief, as claimed in the article. Moreover, we have a huge amount of experience with methadone, because it is widely used for opiate maintenance in opiate addicts. Opiate addicts take methadone under supervision, so they can't escalate their doses. So we know that when methadone is taken as prescribed on a regular basis, it is safe and effective, and toxic levels do not build up in the body.

    I think that this is a problem of poor patient and physician education and poor choices by physicians in prescribing a long-acting drug to patients who don't really understand what that means. The average patient has no experience with long-acting pain relievers, because all of the commonly used medications such as hydrocodone are short-acting. The pain relief of a long-acting opiate lasts a long time, but it is also slow in onset. This is an unavoidable aspect of the pharmacokinetics of long-acting drugs. That means that you can't wait until you start hurting, then take a methadone pill and expect the pain to go away in under an hour, as with short-acting drugs. It will take days for the pain relief from methadone to build up to its full level. A patient who doesn't understand this is likely to think, "It isn't working," and take more than the prescribed dose--and then when it does build up, they end up in respiratory depression.

    There is no way to have a long acting opiate pain killer drug that does not carry the same risk as methadone. The same hazards apply to oxycontin (which is a time-release formulation of a short-acting opiate, oxycodone).

    So the patient needs to be told in no uncertain terms, "This isn't a drug where you can wait until you start hurting and then take a pill. It won't work, and it is dangerous to take it that way. You must take it on schedule, every day. You can't take extra even if you are hurting. If you miss a pill, don't take extra to make up. If you take more than the prescribed dose, or take it more often than prescribed, you may DIE." And the doctor needs to be absolutely certain that the patient understands this and is capable of complying. If not (or if there is not a reliable care-giver capable of controlling dosing), then the patient should be prescribed a short-acting narcotic (although this carries its own, different risks).

    1. Re:I don't buy it by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 2

      So the patient needs to be told in no uncertain terms, "This isn't a drug where you can wait until you start hurting and then take a pill. It won't work, and it is dangerous to take it that way. You must take it on schedule, every day. You can't take extra even if you are hurting. If you miss a pill, don't take extra to make up. If you take more than the prescribed dose, or take it more often than prescribed, you may DIE." And the doctor needs to be absolutely certain that the patient understands this and is capable of complying. If not (or if there is not a reliable care-giver capable of controlling dosing), then the patient should be prescribed a short-acting narcotic (although this carries its own, different risks).

      That information was not given to me when I was prescribed Vicodin while passing kidney stones. So, I learned the hard way that if I waited for the pain to start before taking another dose rather than taking it on schedule, I'd be miserable for a half hour before the new dose took effect. In hindsight, I can see how somebody could accidentally overdose in that situation, if they didn't understand that they just need to wait for the pill to take effect or if the pain was bad enough to drive them to desperation.

  29. Re:methadone is very useful in managing chronic pa by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That and patients don't understand methadone kinetics (not too surprising). There is a tendency to 1) take extra doses to help dull the pain (or deal with withdrawal issues) and 2) medicate with something else. Typically the something else is alcohol. The combination of alcohol and methadone is especially dangerous. Two potent respiratory depressants with very different kinetics.

    Methadone is the poster child for all that is screwed up with pain control and addiction in this country. As usual, it is popular to shoot the 'messenger'. Until the ability to deal with narcotic addiction is wrestled away from the DEA and until patients in general feel like their problem is more of a medical one than a legal one it's just going to get worse. As an ER doc, I'm seeing methadone in a lot of urine drug screens these days. Talking to patients (the ones that will talk, anyway) they are mostly taking it to deal with withdrawal symptoms when they can't get their drug of choice. Of course, that leads them to manage their problem on their own with a very dangerous drug. Not a terribly safe nor effective combination.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  30. Re:methadone is very useful in managing chronic pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Forgive the posting of AC, but Methadone is a wonder drug for those that take it as prescribed. I had never thought of it as a pain reliever and was leary of taking it because of societys label on it. But it does what other pain killers wont. It has allowed me to live a prety normal life. I take twenty mg morning noon and night. I had been on percocet for 10+ years for back injuries from jobs I have had. Percocet is "a hella of a drug" I hated how badly I LOVED it, and couldn't be without it, the high, the relieff of pain. All of it. Methadone just dulls the pain. No HIGH!!!! I LOVE it. I am not stoned all day long, I can live a normal life without nodding off all day long. Even on it I still feel my spine acting like a jackhammer into my ass. But it is liveable on the drug. We went slow. I went from 5mg three times a day for a year to the 10mg three times a day. It is a good tool when used properly.

  31. you're an idiot by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the most potent destroyer of freedom in the entire history of mankind, by orders of magnitude, is no government, it is drug addiction

    there is no stronger bars that the most depraved government can build then the bars the drug addiction place in your mind. a constant interrupt switch "get high... get high... get high" makes unable to work, maintain a relationship, think thoughts of philosophy, art, design, anything deep because of the pain of withdrawal

    and this is the real story of the history of opium addiction, and "little or no social problems" from 100 years ago, you idiot:

    http://opioids.com/opium/opiumwar.html

    drug addiction as a tool to destroy a society you want to subjugate

    i understand that people here detest government regulations and impositions on human freedoms. but why that means we have to accept a far worse form of freedom destruction, drug addiction, is beyond my understanding

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  32. Re:methadone is very useful in managing chronic pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That and patients don't understand methadone kinetics (not too surprising). There is a tendency to 1) take extra doses to help dull the pain (or deal with withdrawal issues) and 2) medicate with something else. Typically the something else is alcohol.

    As someone who has dealt with severe pain from an accident before, I think the tendency to take extra doses or self-medicate with alcohol as well is understandable. When the pain is so strong that it cuts through everything else, the risk of death seems a small price to pay to dull the pain. I'm not exaggerating. If you're in enough pain, rational thought goes out the window.

    More effective pain treatment options would probably prevent some of these deaths. Perhaps we should be less concerned about addicts pill seeking, and more concerned about pain management.

  33. yeah by unity100 · · Score: 2

    taking care of unfortunate people should be 'voluntary' in freaking 21st century. opting in the capitalist system is not voluntary, but, fixing its ills, is. how ironic.

    if you are living IN a society, you have obligations. if you want to live with the exquisitely complex and intricate philosophy of 'me me me, my my my, self self self, myself', then go live on a mountain top.

    what provided you with the living standards that separates you from the caveman living in a cave, has been the society. and NO - it was not capitalism. technology and living standards have been developing all throughout history.

    so either learn up, or shut the hell up. dont recite a mindset that was 'new' 200 years ago.

  34. Who can you mod this fiend up? by Snaller · · Score: 2

    There is a "war" on drugs because there are too many inhuman assholes like you in society who cares about nobody but themselves.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating