Posted on 06/27/2017 2:29:55 AM PDT by Libloather
“She’s not a junkie. Is she lucky, too?”
And some people can stop smoking or drinking too. Some cant... Yes, she is lucky.
Like I said in my first post, 18% become addicted after a week.
Your experience is the opposite of mine. I had a torn rotator cuff and they gave me a dozen Percocet after the repair operation. The next day after that was the worst pain I have ever experienced. Two Percocet didn’t touch it, and I was afraid to take more. It eventually subsided. I know a number of medical professionals and they never recommend anything but nsaids.
You might be surprised to learn how few of those drugs are actually used for the purpose of treating physical pain. If it were one pill in ten that was used in the officially intended manner, that number would seem to be on the high side to me.
Conservatives...the party of Life???
There are many addicts who relapse repeatedly and finally recover. I’m not comfortable playing God.
Let the slamming begin. Or just go with the leftists who limit their value on life.
I might be. Do you have a source study?
I have a history of high pain tolerance. The doc said my heart rate was so elevated if he didn’t have my chart he would think I was having a stroke.
He was trying to be nice. I was trying to figure out why my thumb was three times to large and causing me to scream when I put on a belt.
Well, there’s this one that all but literally just hit the presses: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3564465/posts
A statement without any factual material to back it up. By many do you mean 50%, 10% 1%?
I’m not comfortable playing God
Yet that's precisely what you're doing when you treat these people who inflict harm on themselves simply for the pleasure of getting high and use limited medical resources to treat their selfish addiction problems to the detriment of people who have legitimate medical emergencies like heart attacks strokes, injuries, kidney stones, etc.
Thanks. Interesting reading. 115 million opioid prescriptions annually doesn’t seem like a lot for a nation of 320 million.
> 115 million opioid prescriptions annually doesn’t seem like a lot for a nation of 320 million.
That’s prescriptions. How many pills in a prescription? I’d have to guess since I haven’t had a prescription for anything in many many years, but I’m guessing that there’s 100 pills to a bottle on average, and now we’re talking order-of-magnitude 10 BILLION pills every single year.
For this ONE class of drugs, only.
There’s no way in hell there is a legitimate medical reason for 90%+ of those drugs to be distributed. No chance. These are primarily recreational in use and everyone involved from the manufacturer to the doctors to the users to the legislators who accept the bribes that make it all legal knows it.
When a disaster happens you are forced to play God when you go to triage.
That would explain so many older adults (40+) around that act like they are 15, never truly growing up.
Won’t happen.. Or, should I say, the city will bet bitch slapped by the courts and by wrongful death and other suits.
They think 8 narcan administrations a day is costly, wait until you owe several multi million dollar judgements.
What the city should be doing is suing the opiod drug manufacturers for flat out fraud they committed getting these painkillers approved by the FDA.
It’s not but unfortunately the drug companies committed fraud and lied about the addiction risks to get them approved by the FDA and to doctors for years about the risks to get them prescribed.
These drugs should have never ever become common place pain killers. Sadly far too many folks get them prescribed, wind up addicted get cut off legally and wind up using street grade heroine to fill the addiction the legally prescribed drugs caused.
The drug compnanies committed fraud of the worst kind around these drugs.
There is no simple solution to the bigger problem of chronic addiction. Let death be the Darwinian answer so as to not “inconvenience” the rest of us - I no longer accept that view.
This addiction is a devastating disease. There is great suffering, cost and it extends beyond the addict, to society and in particular to their families. There is tough-love and there is enabling. The question - is Narcan really helping the addict or enabling subsequent abuse? It is worthy of societal discussion.
Addiction has hit me very close to home on several fronts, I won’t divulge more other than to say I am now “biased” based on 1st hand experience. Narcan helps the addict in the immediate emergency. I see this as good. Of course, there are limits to resources, and we as a society are going to have to struggle with this resource allocation, maybe until there is a significant decline in drug abuse. I recall Trump and Christy as candidates spoke strongly on several occasions about the devastation of drugs on Americans and the societal need to address it. I don’t remember Clinton bringing it up, she may have, I don’t recall - it was hard enough to sit and listen to her through the debates, let alone a predictable speech. I digress.
In my younger years, I had the “let ‘em die”, I don’t want to be “inconvenienced” hands-off approach because addicts choose to live this way. Unknown to me at the time, I began to modify my view years later after hearing a recovering addict speak about his life’s struggle, and how certain people’s acts and organizations that help addicts eventually but by the grace of God helped him turned to hope and save his life.
It would be a shame that because of the 3 dose limit someone dies when maybe that 4th dose could be the one that finally starts him in recovery. Others may turn around after one dose, still others will die eventually no matter the number of doses. Also, first responders should not be thrust into the position to decide that after taking many minutes looking up on the computer that this dying person no longer qualifies for Narcan, and thereby call the morgue rather than take him to the hospital / detox. If the Rx supply is available then use it in the emergency.
Closer to 20 rather than 100 unless prescribed for terminal cancer patient My F-I-L died of metastatic lung cancer and they prescribed bottle of 100 for his last few weeks
The problem is that there isn't any alternative. NSAIDS have a threshold beyond which they're not effective at blocking pain not matter how much you take. Opioids don't have a threshold. Severe pain cannot be managed without opioids.
That’s a bit simplistic.
It’s one thing to forgive others for their sins, it’s another thing to pay for their medical bills eternally or until they die, while they refuse to stop the sin of gluttony/drug/alcohol abuse.
I’ve heard that saving a persons life from a drug overdose regularly exceeds the cost of $500,000 per event. So when some street monster/brain dead zombie of a human does that 3-4 times in a couple years, the cost is so high that you can only sink the ship of all society to continue that kind of stupidity.
But yes, may God Bless the sinner, sin no more, stop trying to kill yourself please....
This is a strawman. We're not talking about being "inconvenienced" That's YOUR word.
Two big problems First is that the taxpayers are on the hook for treated these people. I have no problem treating them if they're willing to pay. The second more serious problem is that there isn't an infinite supply of medical care resources. If you're spending resources on some jackasses who keep your ER busy because they want to get high, then those same ER resources aren't really available for people with things like heart attacks, ruptured intestines, serious injuries, etc. These are people who through no fault of their own could die if they don't receive prompt medical attention. This isn't an "inconvenience."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.