The FDA has urged the US to make painkillers harder for patients to obtain. The change in policy would make it more difficult for patients to obtain refills on prescription drugs; it would decrease the amounts of refills patients could get between prescriptions and would require a patient to bring in a written prescription to their pharmacy, rather than just having a doctor call in an order.
One of the main reasons for tightening restrictions is the increase in deaths caused by drug overdose--the number of deaths per year due to overdose has quadrupled since 1999.
These new regulations, if put in place, would require patients to get a new prescription every three months, rather than every six.
How much of an impact will these regulations make to patient health? How effective will they be on painkiller abuse?
9 comments:
I think these harsher regulations are beneficial because there are too many cases of people of having addiction problems with prescription drugs. Ideally, these regulations will help decrease the number of people who are harmed from addiction. Unfortunately, there is no perfect law, so it will be harder for people who are on regular prescription medicine to obtain their medicine. While this is an inconvenience, I think it will ultimately not be a big issue because the new regulations will become routine. Unfortunately, people will still try to find ways around stricter regulations as well. Like I said earlier, there is no such thing as a perfect law, but I still believe that harsher regulations will decrease the number of people on prescription drugs.
These new restrictions would be an attempt to decrease the number of people abusing prescription pain pills at the cost of the people who actually need them. Although some people who abuse these drugs do have their own prescriptions, I think that many of them acquire the drugs from others. The regulations could help stop that market, but as with most other drugs, if people want them, they will find them. It is a good start against the problem of abuse, but I believe there is a lot more to do. This epidemic has become a big problem in our society, especially with the younger generations, and I think that it is important that the government is trying help.
I can understand why the FDA is trying to impose these new restrictions, drug overdose has been a major issue in the past. Still, I feel that this could create a whole new issue for people who need quick and easy access to painkillers. I agree with Paige on that there is no perfect law, which only makes it harder for the FDA to decide on how to restrict people's access to painkillers. By taking the path they are currently on, the FDA has made it harder for people to overdose on painkillers, but they have also made it harder for people who actually need painkillers to obtain them. These new restrictions will most likely help to limit the number of cases of painkiller abuse, but they could also have a negative impact on patient health. Basically, I believe that these new restrictions will have both positive and negative effects.
I can see why enacting stricter regulation of prescription medications would be a logical precaution against drug abuse, and I agree with Paige that, once enacted, the new regulation will become routine. However, Connor made a good point that it inconveniences the patients that need medication the most and that those who are abusing their medications will likely obtain them from elsewhere. I also wonder how much the law will cost to enact. If the price is high, I believe that, however well-intentioned the new regulations may be, there are bigger problems to tackle. (I'd like to be clear that I don't mean to belittle or claim that drug abuse is not a problem.)
Like many other commenters above I can see the reasoning behind these regulations, but Connor does bring up a strong point about drug abusers finding drugs from other places other than the local pharmacy. I really do think these regulations are going to be an inconvenience for patients who do actually need painkillers to get through the day. These patients should not have to go to great lengths to find the care they need, and I think that this law will hinder their ability to access proper care. If the purpose of this law is to curb drug abuse, I think there are more effective ways to do so. It's certainly not an easy thing to eradicate, but trying to do so at the expense of actual patients does not seem like to be the best method.
It seems to me like these regulations are addressing a symptom, not a cause. The regulations will not reduce the reasons - lack of knowledge, curiosity, addiction, depression, etc. - that people overdose. It will only make it harder for people to get the materials necessary to overdose. It may be too idealistic of me, but we are talking about medicines here. Generally one prefers the medicine that gets to the root of the problem, not just gets rid of some effects of the problem. Especially if, as Connor said, people will probably be able to find the drugs anyway.
It does seem like these regulations will inevitably inconvenience somebody. Although, if people are dying from overdoses, then isn't saving lives worth the inconvenience?
I've recently watched a video of a guy reading a poem he wrote called "American in 4 minutes" (http://brandenwellington.blogspot.com/2012/11/1st-video-poem.html), which includes a quote that I thought of while reading about these regulations on painkillers: "In our America we tend to put bandages over the problems/Without really fixing the cause."
Like many of my peers have already mentioned before me, I understand the need for these harsher regulations. And I agree with these stricter regulations, but I think they would be much more effective in combating drug abuse and addiction if they were combined with efforts to improve education and curb unemployment. I'm not talking about raising the standard of education, but I'm talking about raising motivation in kids to want to learn, because education (along with hard work and other factors) is the key to success. This may be done by improving the school facilities and faculties, or some other way. That brings me to unemployment. Higher unemployment often tend to positively correlate with higher crime rates as well as higher rates of drug use (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/does-higher-unemployment-lead-to-more-drug-use/). And like Brianne said, there's also other problems that leads to drug abuse thats should be addressed other than education and unemployment. I think it's important to recognize that while regulations will, in the words of Brandon Wellington, "put [a bandage] over the problem," it won't "really [fix] the cause."
That was in interesting point you brought out Jackie, it made me begin to think about the true problem and who this law really effects. Since the patients would be required to gain new prescription each month it would lower the chance of abuse since it is more difficult to get them in mass amounts. I not only agree with you on that we need to focus on education and facilities to tend to this issue, but I think that patients should know more about what pain killers can do, and how they can limit themselves. Also they should be limited on what they can take from a pharmacy with a prescription.
I feel that these stricter restrictions will be more helpful in preventing painkiller abuse, but it may be detrimental to some patients, who really do need that heavy of a dose. I think that instead of tightening the restrictions, they should tighten the availability of the painkillers, as these over-the-counter drugs are way too easy to obtain. Some say that harsher rules lead to sneakier rule-breakers, and I feel like this could potentially end the same way. However, I do believe that these new restrictions would lower the amount of drug abuse there is.
Post a Comment