Posted by Ritch on May 4, 2002, at 11:25:44
In reply to Are Meds over prescribed ? , posted by Uppendown on May 3, 2002, at 12:42:29
> Hi Ya'll,
>
> Given all of our individual and collective experiences with all these meds, and the amount of posts about how people are STILL struggling after months and years taking these meds, do you think that meds are over prescribed ? Do you think that well meaning docs, anxious to help their patients, rely on meds before exploring other, non medication options such as psychotherapy? And, what do you think of the "cocktail" approach, where drugs are added to counter-act the negative effects of drugs initially prescribed?
>
> I fully understand that drugs are often required, for a wide variety of reasons, but I'm also VERY concerned that alot of the issues we see P-docs for are created or exacerbated by the very meds we're prescribed.
>
> Just curious about how people here feel and think about that, both generally, as well as how it is relevant to themslves personally. On how the loss of congnitive abilities, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, etc so often associated with these meds has impacted each of us in ways like causing us to isolate, lose jobs, lower our self esteem, etc.. I know this is something a great many of us struggle with..
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Uppendown
Hi,I think sometimes we get used to these cocktails and we will still naturally complain because our symptoms aren't completely 100% overcome. However, I think I am much better off now taking low doses of 3-5 meds than I was taking a ton of lithium by itself (and more productive and paying more *taxes*). I personally don't *like* having to take so many pills (and pay for them). I am always looking for some way to simplify my med regime or possibly withdraw a medication if I feel I really don't need it. Also, polypharmacy isn't always due to the side effects of one med necessiating the addition of another. (That makes great ammunition for the antimedication crowd however) I think the bottom line in all of this is just that--the bottom line. The antimed folks are indirectly arguing a moral ideological issue---It's *bad* to take so many medicines, to be so dependent on them, when possibly you could just do therapy (or go to church) and wouldn't need them-what a shame! But IMO, it is employers and insurance companies that are pushing this antimed trend the hardest. It will be a media battle using subtle moral themes instead of presenting good evidence. But, the insurance companies and employers are bleeding red big time on RX meds-no disputing that. So... how are we going to get the *price* down? That's what is really going on IMHO. The "political economy" of the thing is being weighed on the collective social costs versus the collective social benefits of all of this medication. The antimed folks (at root) have in their argument that the costs of all of this medicating greatly outweighs what benefits we are getting from it. So, what side of the "curve" are we on? Would spending *more* on psych meds and medicating more people yield a greater **measurable** collective benefit? It is going to be *voted* on by people where they work. Health insurance premiums and copayments are already going up and those are being passed along to workers. How much more "collectively" are workers going to be willing to pay (in premiums), before they reach a point where they don't feel it is worth it to subsidize other people's meds? So, we are going to get down to "who is going to pay?". Of course, if you are well-off and have an expensive pdoc you will pay for the meds you need yourself and not be impacted that much. The question is--if we cut demand for medications by the masses by cutting off the funding (thru insurance formularies-increased copays,etc.) will be actually be harming people (and society as a whole) because they have barriers to access?
Mitch
poster:Ritch
thread:104929
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020503/msgs/105031.html