An ethical dilemma for doctors: When is it OK to prescribe opioids?

20120511_zaf_n03_004.jpg

File 20170921 20991 1jy5lqo
For patients with chronic pain, the answer isn’t simple.
Chris Post/AP Photo

Travis N. Rieder, Johns Hopkins University

America’s opioid crisis is getting worse. The role of prescription opioids has both the medical establishment and the government justifiably worried.

In response, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine released an official report on the crisis earlier this year. And, on September 21, the National Academy of Medicine released a special publication calling clinicians to help combat the crisis.

As a bioethicist working on the ethical and policy issues regarding prescription opioids, I am grateful to the National Academy of Medicine for inviting me to serve on this publication’s authorship team, and for taking seriously the ethical component of the prescription opioid crisis. The opioid epidemic is shot through with ethical challenges.

There are many discussions we could have, but I will here focus on just one of them: the issue of morally responsible prescribing. Should prescription opioids be used at all? And if so, how? The question is obviously important for clinicians, but the rest of us – patients – should understand what our doctors and nurses owe us regarding our care.

Two public health crises

One of the central challenges of the opioid epidemic is figuring out how to respond without harming pain patients.

If opioids prevent significant suffering from pain, then the solution to the prescription opioid problem cannot simply be to stop using them. To do so would be to trade one crisis (an opioid crisis) for another (a pain crisis).

The data suggest, however, that pain patients’ interests will not always run counter to the goal of curbing the opioid crisis. The evidence favoring opioid therapy for chronic, noncancer pain is very weak, and there’s some evidence that opioid therapy can actually increase one’s sensitivity to pain.

Opioid therapy also comes with significant costs – the risk of addiction and the potential for drowsiness, constipation, nausea and other side effects.

As a result, more of the medical community is realizing that opioids are simply not good medications for chronic, noncancer pain. Getting patients off long-term opioid therapy may well improve their lives.

Should we use opioids at all?

It would be nice if we could simply stop using opioids. But the situation is rather more complicated than that.

Even if opioid therapy shouldn’t be first-line (or even second-line) treatment for chronic pain, that doesn’t mean that it won’t work for anyone. Patients are individuals, not data points, and risks of opioid therapy – as well as the risks of not providing pain relief – are not the same for everyone.

This is important because debilitating chronic pain can lead to a life that seems not worth living, and sometimes even to suicide. In the face of life-destroying pain, if we run out of other options, it’s not clear that we should avoid using a third-line treatment in the hopes of saving a life.

Those who have been on high doses of opioids for years or decades pose another serious challenge. Many of these patients are concerned about the backlash against opioids. Some believe that the opioids are saving their lives. Others may be terrified of going into withdrawal if their medication is taken away.

If we move away from opioid therapy too abruptly, physicians may abandon these patients or force them to taper before they are ready. Tapering, under the best of circumstances, is a long, uncomfortable process. If it’s badly managed, it can be hell. The health care system created these patients, and we don’t get to turn our backs on them now.

Finally, opioids are important medications for acute, surgical and post-traumatic pain. Such pain can require long-term treatment when a series of surgeries stretches out for months, or when a traumatic injury requires a long, painful recovery. In these cases, opioids often make life manageable.

Although calls to limit opioid prescriptions generally don’t target these patients, we might reasonably worry about shifting attitudes. If medical culture becomes too opioid-phobic, who will prescribe for these patients?

Responsible prescribing

Fighting the epidemic with nuance will require constant vigilance. In the new National Academy of Medicine publication, we suggest a number of ways that clinicians can work toward responsible prescribing and management of opioids.

In short, clinicians must prescribe opioids only when appropriate, employing nonopioid pain management strategies when indicated. Evidence supports the use of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, as well as physical therapy, exercise, acupuncture, meditation and yoga.

Clinicians must also be willing to manage any prescriptions they do write over the long term. And, at every stage, prescribers should collaborate with others as needed to ensure that patients receive the necessary care.

Although clinicians shouldn’t be “anti-opioid,” they should be justifiably wary of prescribing for chronic, noncancer pain. And when a prescription is appropriate, the clinician should not write for more than is needed.

Patients should go into opioid therapy with a rich understanding of the risks and benefits. They should also have a plan of care, including an “exit strategy” for getting off the medication.

A role for nonclinicians?

The suggestions above may seem straightforward, and perhaps even obvious. So it’s important to point out that this work is time-consuming and sometimes – as in the case of high-risk patients – challenging. Counseling, advising and trying to avoid unnecessary opioid use is much more difficult than writing a quick prescription.

Although this difficult work is still the clinician’s responsibility, the rest of us can make it easier for them to do their job well. After all, no one likes to experience unnecessary pain. Our expectation of powerful pain relief is part of the cultural backdrop of the epidemic.

The ConversationThat expectation is going to have to change. Moderate acute pain from injury, dental procedures or whatever may have yielded a prescription for Percocet or Vicodin in the past. And when we are the ones in pain, we might still prefer that doctors hand out such medication like candy. But the opioid epidemic is teaching us that we don’t, in fact, want that to be clinicians’ standard practice. We shouldn’t demand exceptions for ourselves.

Travis N. Rieder, Research Scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Angela Merkel wins a fourth term in office – but it won’t be an easy one

Federal election in Germany

Patricia Hogwood, University of Westminster

Angela Merkel will continue as chancellor of Germany. But following an election that saw the rise of smaller parties – most notably the far right – her fourth term will probably be an eventful one in ways she would not wish for.

The Union parties (Merkel’s CDU and sister party CSU) finished in top place with just under 33%. They did nevertheless lose almost 9% over their previous election result of 2013.

The Social Democratic Party (SPD), coalition partner to the Union parties, finished a distant second, with just over 20% of the vote. For the SPD, this is a historic low: almost 6% down on the last election. Party leader Martin Schulz failed to come up to scratch in a lacklustre campaign.

Four smaller parties have managed to meet the 5% threshold to qualify for seats in parliament.

The right-wing populist party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), achieved a dubious milestone in post-war German history. With a vote share of 12.5%, it will be the first overtly far-right nationalist party to enter the federal parliament.


Germany’s AfD: how to understand the rise of the right-wing populists


The Left Party (die Linke) and the Green Party (Bündnis ‘90/die Grünen) made marginal gains to score 9% and just over 9% respectively. Big gains went to one party that had been more or less written off after the last election and to another that many commentators hoped never to see in parliament at federal level. The liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) rose from the ashes to return to parliament under their charismatic new leader Christian Lindner. With 10.7% of the vote, the party more than doubled its tally of the last election.

Forming a government

The new government will need to control 316 seats in the parliament to achieve the majority needed to take office. While probably technically possible, a continuation of the current Grand Coalition (GroKo) between CDU/CSU and SPD now seems unlikely.

Having sent mixed messages before the election, the SPD declared after the close of polls that it aims to work as an opposition party in the new parliament.

With the AfD and die Linke ruled out of a CDU/CSU-based coalition on ideological grounds, this leaves the possibility of a so-called Jamaica coalition of CDU/CSU, FDP and the Greens (the parties’ traditional colours of black, green and yellow tally with the Jamaican flag). However, this option is no foregone conclusion and could prove very unpopular with voters.

All roads lead to Merkel

Despite the consistency of the polls over the past few weeks, an unprecedented number of German voters – around 40% – remained undecided as late as a week before the election.

The uncertainty was palpable in an unusually nervy, volatile mood among the electorate. Psychologist Stephan Grünewald noted odd swings in public perceptions of the Merkel government’s achievements. One minute Germany was a “desolate land”, the next an “island of prosperity”.

Germans are well aware of their relative prosperity in Europe but seem to have been traumatised by the impact of the migrant crisis within their borders. Anxiety runs high over international tensions and there is a fear that Germany’s economic security is under threat. At one level, people could hardly be bothered about the election. Even so, social media posts exploded with rage and Merkel’s car was pelted with tomatoes at appearances in the east – her home territory.

The voters sensed that a change was overdue, but calculated that in practice all votes – other than for the radical outliers of the Left Party and AfD – would trickle back to Merkel. Ironically, the opposition parties fed the perception that there was no alternative to Merkel.

Before election day, all of the remaining mainstream parties – SPD, Greens and FDP – had seemed open to the idea of joining a coalition. With the Union parties bossing the polls at around 36% and the SPD well behind at around 22%, it was clear that any continuation of the GroKo would be led by Merkel, not Schulz.

Even after three terms in office and after testing the forbearance of the German public with her open doors asylum policy, 56% claimed in polling that they would rather see her remain chancellor while only 32% favoured Schulz. With neither the mainstream parties nor the voters daring to rock the boat, Merkel barely needed to campaign.

But now she faces another set of challenges before she can forge a new government. Before the election it was thought that the higher the vote for the AfD, the greater the likelihood that the vote of the other smaller parties would be squeezed, making a continuation of the crumbling CDU/CSU-SPD partnership unavoidable. Instead, it was the vote of the two main parties that was squeezed, apparently convincing the SPD that there was no future for it in a Merkel-led GroKo. Now Merkel must try to make a pact with two parties that will stretch the comfort zone of an already broad Union church.

The ConversationAlso, the higher the vote for the AfD, the greater the pressure that the CSU, the CDU’s more conservative and reactionary Bavarian sister party, can exert on the content of the government’s coalition agreement and on future policy direction. Horst Seehofer, leader of the CSU, had already announced his intention of driving the Union parties further to the right in the post-election coalition negotiations. The strident entry of the AfD into parliament will help him to justify his demands, including a more rigorous immigration control policy. With the CSU suffering a historic low of 38.5% – a drop of almost 11% of the vote – in its Bavarian constituency, it will be sure to press even harder for conservative reforms.

Patricia Hogwood, Reader in European Politics, University of Westminster

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Jimmy Kimmel praises Susan Collins for her vote

US NEWS TRUMP-AVIATION SIP

The Republican efforts to repeal and replace the extremely popular Obamacare with an extremely unpopular Graham Cassidy bill may have just been dealt its death blow by Senator Susan Collins or Maine. Tonight, as live debate was going on in Congress, Collins declared that she will vote “no” on Graham Cassidy. She is the third Republican… Continue reading “Jimmy Kimmel praises Susan Collins for her vote”

Clinton: Americans should be ‘terrified’ over Russian interference

The Russians Are Coming! — Hillary Clinton Compares Herself to Paul Revere

In her interview with Joy Reid today, Hillary Clinton responded to Reid’s question: Did she think any crimes were committed by the Trump campaign? There was “certainly an attempt by many of the Trump associates to hide the connections that they had with representatives of the Russian government and people close to Putin,” she said. “We… Continue reading “Clinton: Americans should be ‘terrified’ over Russian interference”

Clapper: Intelligence assessment ‘cast doubt’ on legitimacy of Trump’s election

On CNN Saturday night, Erin Burnett questioned former Director of National Intelligence director James Clapper about Russian interference in the election.

She asked him about Trump’s reaction to those intelligence briefings.

“When we briefed him, if you’re speak of the briefing on the 6th of January, he was very curious, complimentary and he did listen,” Clapper said.

“And frankly, the evidence that we provided in detail –which of course we couldn’t expose publicly– was pretty overwhelming. It’s why we had such a high confidence level in what we said in that assessment. And so I thought it was a good discussion. He had some doubts about some things, but that’s fine to be skeptical about some things. But on balance, I thought we successfully conveyed the message because the substantiating evidence was quite compelling and we didn’t hear anything about the 400 pound guy in his bed in New Jersey.”

“Which is and I think very important, as you said, because I think obviously when he says publicly is different than what you’re describing, which is sort of the way you want an incoming president to respond, courteous and receptive and listen,” Burnett said.

But Clapper wanted to point out the ultimate result of that meeting.

“I have to say, Erin, I think what this was maybe the first or early harbinger of what I think really motivated him is, our intelligence community assessment did, I think, serve to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his victory in the election and I think that, above all else, is what concerned him. I think that transcends, unfortunately, the real concern here, which is Russian interference in our political process, which by the way, is going to continue,” Clapper said.

Got that? The then-DNI director says the evidence was compelling enough to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. Not as an inconvenient political perception, but as a fact.

No wonder he’s so edgy.

Why is no one sending aid to Puerto Rico?

Toxic waste in the post-global warming world

0004854a

If you’ve been following this story, you already know that Texas exempted itself from the FEMA rules that requires them to maintain a record of all toxic substances on sites so that first responders know what they’re dealing with. FREEDUMB! Nice that they won’t be sharing that info with the public as they clean this up:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency says it has recovered 517 containers of “unidentified, potentially hazardous material” from highly contaminated toxic waste sites in Texas that flooded last month during Hurricane Harvey.

The agency has not provided details about which Superfund sites the material came from, why the contaminants at issue have not been identified and whether there’s a threat to human health.

The one-sentence disclosure about the 517 containers was made Friday night deep within a media release from the Federal Emergency Management Agency summarizing the government’s response to the devastating storm.

At least a dozen Superfund sites in and around Houston were flooded in the days after Harvey’s record-shattering rains stopped. Associated Press journalists surveyed seven of the flooded sites by boat, vehicle and on foot. The EPA said at the time that its personnel had been unable to reach the sites, though they surveyed the locations using aerial photos.

The Associated Press reported Monday that a government hotline also received calls about three spills at the U.S. Oil Recovery Superfund site, a former petroleum waste processing plant outside Houston contaminated with a dangerous brew of cancer-causing chemicals. Records obtained by the AP showed workers at the site reported spills of unknown materials in unknown amounts.