NY Times Editorial on "Painkiller abuse"

[jul2873]

Here is the editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/opini ... ional&_r=0

And here is the study the editorial cites: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2089370

My problem with the editorial is that it seems to be drawing conclusions from the study that weren't really there. The editorial leads with this statement: "An authoritative new review of scientific studies has found no solid evidence that opioids are effective in relieving long-term chronic pain." If you continue reading the editorial, you can see that the reason there is no evidence is because there are no long-term studies.

Perhaps I am just not reading everything carefully enough. I know some people on this board are very knowledgeable about long-term opioid use. You might consider seeing if you can make sense out of the study, and the editorial. And if I'm right, you might think about writing a letter to the editor. There are no comments allowed for this piece. Or you could point it out to doctors like Dr. Buchfurher, who have so much experience with long term opioid use. My worry is that since the NY Times is so powerful in influencing policy, this kind of misleading information will just make it even harder for people in need of these drugs to get them.

[ViewsAskew]

I just skimmed the study and came to the same conclusion you did - they cherry picked that, didn't they? No long term evidence for, but not against, either!

[sleepdancer2]

I agree with what's already been said. Admittedly I am jaded and suspicious when it comes to this kind of stuff. I have to wonder if any piece of this is agenda based. I mean, why did the last paragraph make mention of the issue's current political status? Was the compilation of information solicited to substantiate the need for the requested funds? Also, I would like to see those stats split out between deaths by users and deaths by abusers. Because this is so one sided it sets off my radar. But that could just be me. Maybe it's all completely unbiased reporting of a problem with these drugs. Now, just hoping resolution to those problems isn't at the expense of those who truly need them.

[ViewsAskew]

sleepdancer2, in my past experience with these thing, it's very one-sided. I feel terrible for those who've lost someone to opioid abuse or a mistake by a user in dosing. You're tired, you can't sleep, you're in pain, so you take one more kind of thing. So, those who've lost someone are very upset and emotional - and it's easy to place all the blame on the drug.

In the last ten years, people have been clamoring for restrictions; seem to me that they aren't looking at the whole picture. Many physicians are terrified of what can happen to them, so they won't deal with it. And, some of it is appropriate - in the 80's and 90's, physicians gave out scripts for hydrocodone like it was candy! They kept refilling, long past when they should have. Now we've swung 180 degrees opposite. There IS a middle ground!

We need more studies, clearly. If there is no research to show that outcomes for people with pain are better or worse using opioids compared to other treatments, we need to do it, not just say it's bad because someone died. I'm not minimizing anyone's death. But, faulting the drugs isn't going to help.

[badnights]

Here is a nice summary of how science makes the news:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive ... micid=1174

[Yankiwi]

Badnights, that's funny and probably accurate. It reminded me of a cartoon where one person says something like "scientists say …" and the other one says, "I don't listen to scientists, I listen to celebrities".

[Rustsmith]

Three times in the last ten years I have had the "opportunity" to be near the center of something that was being heavily reported by the mainstream national press. In both cases, it was interesting to see the number of reports that were either simply got the facts wrong or that hit just the facts that the reporter needed to make a point that was clearly biased. The event that came closest to getting things right was the Boston bombing, and I think that one was due to the competition to get anything to report during the few days afterward (and the number of news agencies that were present). Even then, there were relevant facts that were not reported by anyone, which I hope were being held back for use during the trial.