This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't know a single person in clinical medicine who wants to eliminate opioids and while I'm sure there might be some crack pots that's an extraordinary claim that requires some evidence to be taken credibly.
Reactive under-prescribing in some outpatient settings is certainly a problem but that's not really your claim.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about people in clinical medicine, though I suppose it's not out of the question there are some drug warriors there. Ask a clinician who deals with severe pain as part of their practice whether APAP or ASA or ibuprofen control pain as well as opiods, and they're going to laugh. The reason studies like this are done is to come to the conclusion "Non-opioid medications are just as good as opoids for , therefore we should move to legally discourage the use of opoids for that condition."
To be "fair" to the drug warriors, in recent years they've been moving from accepting the presence of APAP in combination drugs as a reason for lesser regulation to not doing so, instead making both the combination and the straight opoid hard to deal with. I presume this means more people with broken bones being sent home with an aspirin.
Anecdotally I've had several significant injuries some of which have been managed with controlled substances and some of which have been managed with staggered dose ibuprofen and APAP, absent the "high" effect they are comparable (for me) when it comes to pain control. The research supports this - plenty of people manage without pain control or with more deliberate OTC medication usage.
Some amount of breakthrough pain or discomfort is normal and to an extent beneficial. Some research suggests that that the desire for total pain control and numbing is a somewhat American cultural specific desire and part of why we have addiction problems in this country.
Analgesia and addiction considerations aside, the medications have a number of problematic side effects that need to be considered. They do have their use though, and the people doing research in this area are aware of that.
Looking at a JAMA article and saying this clinical research is fabricated by non-clinician puritans is conspiratorial thinking, especially because the types of people have cultural sway for this kinda of thing at the moment are probably best categorized as dangerously pro-opioid - see: safe injection sites, methadone clinics, and pushing of Suboxone as the best solution to the problem.
Yes, if you have to suffer without pain control you can suffer. Having suffered this way, I do not wish to suffer in the future because some drug warrior thinks that opiods are a stain on the American soul. And I have seen some of their writings about how it's better that someone die horribly of acetaminophen toxicity rather than feed an opiod addiction, so I do not believe they have anyone's best interests at heart.
Where is the evidence these people have fabricated studies in an attempt to slander the efficacy of opioids?
That's your claim right?
Otherwise you can find a minority population online saying whatever, but they need to have an impact on prescribing habits and the research you deny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link