Tylenol May Kill Kindness (washingtonpost.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader randomErr writes: In research published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience scientists describe the results of two experiments conducted involving more than 200 college students.Their conclusion is that acetaminophen can reduce a person's capacity to empathize with another person's pain. "We don't know why acetaminophen is having these effects, but it is concerning," senior author Baldwin Way, an Ohio State University psychologist, said. One of the studies has half the group consume a liquid with acetaminophen while the other group received a placebo. The group that drink the acetaminophen thought that people they read about experiencing pain was not as severe as the placebo group thought.
The Washington Post notes that acetaminophen is the most common drug ingredient in the United States, adding that "about a quarter of all Americans take acetaminophen every week."

Comments

Sounds plausible

[fyrewulff]

I mean, the medicine alters your brain's perception of pain. Makes sense that it could, by proximity of function, alter your brain's perception of other people's pain.

Re:Sounds plausible

[bersl2]

I personally find that acetaminophen is also good on the kind of pain induced by psychological withdrawl. If my brain starts hurting after having to go without one or more of my psychotropics for days, acetaminophen is better at addressing the spike being driven into my skull than other analgesics. So it does seem plausible that people with pain in the body may want to prefer NSAIDs or aspirin, unless contraindicated.

Re:Sounds plausible

[Calydor]

Perception of pain is reduced by the medicine.

Person tries to empathize with pain described by imagining what it would feel like.

Perception of pain IS REDUCED.

Objective expression of empathy becomes reduced as a result, but subjectively, seen from the people in the test? They probably didn't feel less empathic.

Uh Oh...

[lobiusmoop]

Hope the military aren't looking into this side effect.

Re:Uh Oh...

[BarbaraHudson]

These are not people who have a choice - not when premiums jump 5x or more. In the case of someone with metastatic cancer, premiums will be $140k a year. Just how many patients, already coping with severe diseases, can make that sort of coin? How are the 1.4 million in retirement homes supposed to pay? It's not like ther are jobs outside of congress and the senate for sclerotic people suffering from dementia.

Re:Uh Oh...

[BarbaraHudson]

And you obviously don't realize that this is the planet Earth, where shit happens. A small likelihood, over time, grows into a near certainty.

And your numbers are off. Stop making up shit when it's so easy to go to the CBO and get the facts:

CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 22 million in 2026. In later years, other changes in the legislation—lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market—would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance. By 2026, among people under age 65, enrollment in Medicaid would fall by about 16 percent and an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

That's 5 million less. And many of those 15 million are going to wish they had health care insurance, especially with the 6-month penalty if they sign up for coverage, and the pre-existing conditions waivers. The reason for insurance is to spread the risk pool, because it's guaranteed that some will need it, and there is no way to predict it.

And the effect will vary by state:

In the agencies’ assessment, a small fraction of the population resides in areas in which—because of this legislation, at least for some of the years after 2019—no insurers would participate in the nongroup market or insurance would be offered only with very high premiums. Some sparsely populated areas might have no nongroup insurance offered because the reductions in subsidies would lead fewer people to decide to purchase insurance—and markets with few purchasers are less profitable for insurers. Insurance covering certain services would become more expensive—in some cases, extremely expensive—in some areas because the scope of the EHBs would be narrowed through waivers affecting close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect. In addition, the agencies anticipate that all insurance in the nongroup market would become very expensive for at least a short period of time for a small fraction of the population residing in areas in which states’ implementation of waivers with major changes caused market disruption.

The areas with the poorest people will have the fewest purchasers. That means some areas will not have nongroup insurance at any price.

Under this legislation, starting in 2020, the premium for a silver plan would typically be a relatively high percentage of income for low-income people. The deductible for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent would be a significantly higher percentage of income—also making such a plan unattractive, but for a different reason. As a result, despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan, CBO and JCT estimate.

And how about a new lifetime cap?

Out-of-pocket spending would also be affected for the people—close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect—living in states modifying the EHBs using waivers. People who used services or benefits no longer included in the EHBs would experience substantial increases in supplemental premiums or out-of-pocket spending on health care, or would choose to forgo the services. Moreover, the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits on covered benefits would no longer apply to health benefits not defined as essential in a state. As a result, for some benefits that might be removed from a state’s definition of EHBs but that might not be excluded from insurance coverage altogether, some enrollees could see large increases in out-of-pocket spending because annual or lifetime limits would be allowed.

Paracetamol

[Tomahawk]

For the non-North-Americans, it's referring to Paracetamol.

Strangely, ibuprofen and aspirin have the same names, but aceominophen/paracetamol doesn't.

What about other analgesics?

[macurmudgeon]

Comparing Tylenol against placebo is a start, but until it's compared against other pain relievers we won't know if the effects are specific to the drug or a generalized response to pain relievers in general.

Science Disagrees

[Roger W Moore]

Actually paracetamol (acetaminophen for Americans) is effective against migraines but only in about 10% of people. The rule I was always told was that then you feel a migraine coming on - aura start etc. - you take paracetamol but if a migraine has already started ibuprofen is better. This seems to work most of the time for me.

However, in both cases these are mild pain relievers and while they work for my migraines which are not particularly severe for more severe cases, like those my dad used to sometimes have, more powerful medications are required. In the UK you can also get paracetamol with added codeine tablets over the counter (in limited numbers and dosages since codeine is mildly addictive) and I find this often works particularly well taken at the start of a migraine.

US college students are not representative

[mveloso]

Didn't someone show that US college students are pretty much the worst subjects to do any testing on?

http://ds-wordpress.haverford....