Posted by MB on August 10, 2001, at 17:31:25
In reply to Re: buprenorphine, legal issues » MB, posted by Elizabeth on August 10, 2001, at 16:43:21
> Actually, pure codeine (with no Tylenol or aspirin or anything added) is Schedule II, the same as methadone. Of course, plain codeine is rarely used for anything.
Ah Ha...I hadn't even thought of that. I wonder what he was giving the patients. Maybe it was the pure codeine, not the Tylenol preparation.
> > It amazes me that a doc could prescribe buprenorphine to a patient for depression but if the same doc prescribes it to an addict for maintenence, that doc could get slapped by the DEA.
>
> I can sort of understand the twisted, sick reasoning here: addicts are deemed to be likely to abuse any drug that is prescribed to them, whereas a nonaddict who is depressed or has chronic pain can potentially be "trusted" with these drugs.
Yeah, I see their point too. Giving an addict free reign over self-administration would be tantamount to telling the street junky, "just don't increase your dose." But my understanding is that buprenorphine doesn't get you "high."
> What I think is screwy is that psychiatrists claim to embrace the disease model of addiction, but they still treat addicts as though that "disease" is a moral failing.
Unfortunately, just because you're seen as having a disease doesn't mean you won't be looked upon with disdain by physicians for having that disease (**especially if the doctors don't know how to cure that particular disorder**).
poster:MB
thread:74353
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010809/msgs/74529.html