My fourth anniversary as a blogger passed recently and it found me smack in the midst of my latest barren spell, idea wise.
Coincidently, I went through my last major dearth of inspiration, aka “writer’s block,” last spring. I broke out of that one after three months with a “Geezer Alert” post in late July on the subject, titled “Just around the block.”
So, this time, I can’t, in good conscience, resort to that same device — writing about not writing — to get going again.
My next best option would seem to be revisiting a past topic with fresh eyes.
And a good one would be my December 2014 post, “The pain of pain,” which examined the confusing, troublesome world of pain medications.
The subject is back in the headlines with the death of musical legend Prince due to apparent misuse of prescription medications that included painkillers.
In addition, a recent Los Angeles Times investigation into medically endorsed misinformation about the dangerous painkiller OxyContin included these facts:
“Over the last 20 years, more than 7 million Americans have abused OxyContin, according to the federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The drug is widely blamed for setting off the nation’s prescription opioid epidemic, which has claimed more than 190,000 lives from overdoses involving OxyContin and other painkillers since 1999.”
Beyond the national painkiller plague, though, I’ve been feeling the agony of the entire drug universe as I progress further into my 60s and traipse into the post-retirement medical jungle (with my wife retiring last December).
It’s a scary land, where the steadily increasing aches and daily discomforts of senior life are met with tempting-but-dubious promises of medicated relief, all at a steep price and just about all with a slew of potential side-effects worse than the original malady.
So far, I have maintained a minimum of drug “dependence.” I use prescription medications to deal with our Central New York atmosphere (which wrecks havoc on the nasal and bronchial passages) sensitive teeth and the threat of glaucoma in one eye.
But more drugs regularly are recommended for me by doctors — people for whom I have the utmost respect — at just about every turn.
I won’t go into specifics on my situation. It’s not what this piece is about.
Rather, what’s been alarming to me is how drugs seem to always be the go-to solution for what ails us and, as a result, we are taking hundreds of different types.
This was brought home to me by a display ad that runs periodically in this area’s daily newspaper, offering supposedly great discounts on drugs. The ad lists dozens of drugs by name, with accompanying price “deals” that are amazingly expensive, if one has to consume the pills (or liquids) on a regular basis.
Whoa. The list is stunning for both the sheer number of drugs out there and the money involved.
Of course, I’m not the first to realize this whole situation has made pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies the most powerful forces in medicine (and politics) and, by extension, the biggest influences on geezers’ quality of life.
It’s just that we, as a nation, encourage it.
We are one of two countries — the other being New Zealand — that allows direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, those ubiquitous television drug pitches spots found primarily on programs with older audiences, such as the evening news.
If we are to believe just one of the most frequent advertisements, we can take two pills every day and be free of just about all our routine aches and pains. Don’t you think, if that were actually even close to the truth, we’d all be popping those pills with our morning Corn Flakes?
According to a recent radio spot I heard, the American Medical Association is trying to have the U.S. government ban such ads due to the confusion and unwarranted drug-pursuit they cause among the general public.
In the rest of the world, the pharmaceutical industry and lobby groups have tried unsuccessfully to overturn bans against on such advertising in Canada and other countries or regions, such as in the European Union (EU), according to the website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/
Notably, the website states, “in 2008, 22 of the 27 EU member states voted against proposed legislation that would have allowed even limited ‘information to patients’ to be provided.”
The bottom line is we should not be pushing drugs, at least not as the first alternative to ailments.
Yes, they do really help millions of people. And, yes, natural solutions (exercise, diet control, Yoga, “mind over matter” mental discipline) are not for everyone. But a more balanced approach to medical issues, putting patients in touch with such natural potential relief measures as well as drugs, seems to be needed.
Sounds so logical. And this whole out-of-control U.S. drug situation certainly is not a big reveal . God knows, once the narcissistic Baby Boomers got caught up in the situation, it’s been the topic of much media and government attention.
Stlll, it is only the arrival of the geezer years that makes many (like me) confront the harshest realities.
So, what’s holding up a full-scale attack on the problem? Corporate profits? Politics? I guess it’s a complex combination of both, plus basic supply-and-demand economics.
I’m not qualified to analyze the financial and political issues (but presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is, and he’s lambasted all involved for the obscene cost of drugs).
The “demand” part, though, is something I’m part of.
For starters, then, I would advocate leaving New Zealand all alone and banning those direct-to-consumer drug advertisements.
That would reduce both the consumer temptation to try certain drugs and the repeated presentation of drugs as a primary solution for what bothers us.
A side benefit would be saving the drug companies millions of dollars, which, of course, they would pass on the consumers in the form of lower drug costs. (cue the laugh track.)
Beyond that . . . a tough but obvious conclusion: Our society needs a whole new medical orientation — an emphasis on non-pharmaceutical solutions. To work, it needs to stop well short of drug-hate (as promoted by many in the alternative treatment field) but maintain a constant vigilance on the limitations of drugs and when their use, once started, can (and should) be halted or, at least, curtailed.
The starting point in this process would have to be the medical establishment but starting point 1A is us, the consumers. People have to take on their maladies with far greater willingness to try natural relief methods.
That’s easy to say (and write) but virtually impossible to implement because, when we are look for relief from pain or discomfort, it’s, “Give me the pills, Doc.”
I’ve been there. With tooth pain from root canals and eye pain from corneal abrasions, I was absolutely desperate for relief, in the form of ibuprofen, which I downed by the hundred of milligrams. (A prescription for hydrocodone proved to be a nightmare, however, as even in a low dose it put me through a tortuous few hours of panic and hallucinations.)
In recent years, I’ve also had to turn to relaxants to deal with some late-in-life claustrophobia. Without the pills, I wouldn’t be able to face airline travel or MRI exams, even with extraordinary “mind over matter” attempts to deal naturally with panic attacks.
So, yes, drugs serve a purpose. Modern medicine is a godsend.
But human nature is human nature and self-control, when it comes to drugs or pleasure-enhancers (like alcohol) is a rare trait.
I guess we can only start with removing the teasers (drug commercials) and take it from there.
Coincidently, I went through my last major dearth of inspiration, aka “writer’s block,” last spring. I broke out of that one after three months with a “Geezer Alert” post in late July on the subject, titled “Just around the block.”
So, this time, I can’t, in good conscience, resort to that same device — writing about not writing — to get going again.
My next best option would seem to be revisiting a past topic with fresh eyes.
And a good one would be my December 2014 post, “The pain of pain,” which examined the confusing, troublesome world of pain medications.
The subject is back in the headlines with the death of musical legend Prince due to apparent misuse of prescription medications that included painkillers.
In addition, a recent Los Angeles Times investigation into medically endorsed misinformation about the dangerous painkiller OxyContin included these facts:
“Over the last 20 years, more than 7 million Americans have abused OxyContin, according to the federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The drug is widely blamed for setting off the nation’s prescription opioid epidemic, which has claimed more than 190,000 lives from overdoses involving OxyContin and other painkillers since 1999.”
Beyond the national painkiller plague, though, I’ve been feeling the agony of the entire drug universe as I progress further into my 60s and traipse into the post-retirement medical jungle (with my wife retiring last December).
It’s a scary land, where the steadily increasing aches and daily discomforts of senior life are met with tempting-but-dubious promises of medicated relief, all at a steep price and just about all with a slew of potential side-effects worse than the original malady.
So far, I have maintained a minimum of drug “dependence.” I use prescription medications to deal with our Central New York atmosphere (which wrecks havoc on the nasal and bronchial passages) sensitive teeth and the threat of glaucoma in one eye.
But more drugs regularly are recommended for me by doctors — people for whom I have the utmost respect — at just about every turn.
I won’t go into specifics on my situation. It’s not what this piece is about.
Rather, what’s been alarming to me is how drugs seem to always be the go-to solution for what ails us and, as a result, we are taking hundreds of different types.
This was brought home to me by a display ad that runs periodically in this area’s daily newspaper, offering supposedly great discounts on drugs. The ad lists dozens of drugs by name, with accompanying price “deals” that are amazingly expensive, if one has to consume the pills (or liquids) on a regular basis.
Whoa. The list is stunning for both the sheer number of drugs out there and the money involved.
Of course, I’m not the first to realize this whole situation has made pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies the most powerful forces in medicine (and politics) and, by extension, the biggest influences on geezers’ quality of life.
It’s just that we, as a nation, encourage it.
We are one of two countries — the other being New Zealand — that allows direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, those ubiquitous television drug pitches spots found primarily on programs with older audiences, such as the evening news.
If we are to believe just one of the most frequent advertisements, we can take two pills every day and be free of just about all our routine aches and pains. Don’t you think, if that were actually even close to the truth, we’d all be popping those pills with our morning Corn Flakes?
According to a recent radio spot I heard, the American Medical Association is trying to have the U.S. government ban such ads due to the confusion and unwarranted drug-pursuit they cause among the general public.
In the rest of the world, the pharmaceutical industry and lobby groups have tried unsuccessfully to overturn bans against on such advertising in Canada and other countries or regions, such as in the European Union (EU), according to the website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/
Notably, the website states, “in 2008, 22 of the 27 EU member states voted against proposed legislation that would have allowed even limited ‘information to patients’ to be provided.”
The bottom line is we should not be pushing drugs, at least not as the first alternative to ailments.
Yes, they do really help millions of people. And, yes, natural solutions (exercise, diet control, Yoga, “mind over matter” mental discipline) are not for everyone. But a more balanced approach to medical issues, putting patients in touch with such natural potential relief measures as well as drugs, seems to be needed.
Sounds so logical. And this whole out-of-control U.S. drug situation certainly is not a big reveal . God knows, once the narcissistic Baby Boomers got caught up in the situation, it’s been the topic of much media and government attention.
Stlll, it is only the arrival of the geezer years that makes many (like me) confront the harshest realities.
So, what’s holding up a full-scale attack on the problem? Corporate profits? Politics? I guess it’s a complex combination of both, plus basic supply-and-demand economics.
I’m not qualified to analyze the financial and political issues (but presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is, and he’s lambasted all involved for the obscene cost of drugs).
The “demand” part, though, is something I’m part of.
For starters, then, I would advocate leaving New Zealand all alone and banning those direct-to-consumer drug advertisements.
That would reduce both the consumer temptation to try certain drugs and the repeated presentation of drugs as a primary solution for what bothers us.
A side benefit would be saving the drug companies millions of dollars, which, of course, they would pass on the consumers in the form of lower drug costs. (cue the laugh track.)
Beyond that . . . a tough but obvious conclusion: Our society needs a whole new medical orientation — an emphasis on non-pharmaceutical solutions. To work, it needs to stop well short of drug-hate (as promoted by many in the alternative treatment field) but maintain a constant vigilance on the limitations of drugs and when their use, once started, can (and should) be halted or, at least, curtailed.
The starting point in this process would have to be the medical establishment but starting point 1A is us, the consumers. People have to take on their maladies with far greater willingness to try natural relief methods.
That’s easy to say (and write) but virtually impossible to implement because, when we are look for relief from pain or discomfort, it’s, “Give me the pills, Doc.”
I’ve been there. With tooth pain from root canals and eye pain from corneal abrasions, I was absolutely desperate for relief, in the form of ibuprofen, which I downed by the hundred of milligrams. (A prescription for hydrocodone proved to be a nightmare, however, as even in a low dose it put me through a tortuous few hours of panic and hallucinations.)
In recent years, I’ve also had to turn to relaxants to deal with some late-in-life claustrophobia. Without the pills, I wouldn’t be able to face airline travel or MRI exams, even with extraordinary “mind over matter” attempts to deal naturally with panic attacks.
So, yes, drugs serve a purpose. Modern medicine is a godsend.
But human nature is human nature and self-control, when it comes to drugs or pleasure-enhancers (like alcohol) is a rare trait.
I guess we can only start with removing the teasers (drug commercials) and take it from there.