Why are doctors so hesitant to prescribe medication that is of actual use?

Why are doctors so hesitant to prescribe medication that is of actual use?

Like, why the fuck would you prescribe shitty codeine when nature has provided us with morphine? Why would you prescribe a shitty antidepressant for an anxiety disorder when there are goddamn actual fucking useful benzodiazepines readily available? Why would you persist and persist with prescribing shitty antidepressants that do absolutely nothing besides induce terrible side effects when you could just prescribe something that forcibly removes depression by way of altering one's state of consciousness (recreational drugs)? I can fucking assure you that a clinically depressed person will no longer be clinically depressed whilst high under a recreational dosage of DXM. But no, instead of prescribing something as useful as DXM, prescriptions for shitty placebo pills like that of SSRIs which have zero effect on one's consciousness, feelings, and thoughts are given out.

Sigh. Can these old dumb as shit doctors and their outdated medical ideologies just fuck off already and die? God.

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118509/
psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201106/now-antidepressant-induced-chronic-depression-has-name-tardive-dysphoria
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

shills, that's why

I'm no doctor bit you need to control cost and additivity. And history and what your taking

I've always kind of got the impression in doctors offices that they are always on the lookout for people acting sick just to get the good stuff. So they are a little more hesitant to give it out. Plus it would look bad if their boss saw they prescribed 40 people with benzos in the last few weeks. Also in the medical world (at least in the navy) you are taught to try the easiest cheapest treatment first. Then, if that doesn't work, move on to the more expensive ones. That's why the famous "drink water, take motrin, change your socks for a broken leg" joke is true. I get free medical treatment through my job and I went in to get my chest scanned for lumps and they gave me an x-ray first. At least in my understanding an x-ray will only pick up bones, but they insisted on doing it first before they gave me a real cat scan.

Why do generals send guys with guns to battle when we have nukes?

You already know the answer to that. If we nuked our problems away everytime there would be nothing left

ER scribe here


1 of every 2 patients are drug seekers, that's why

It was a rhetorical question, Retardo.

And we would have no problems. Problem solved.

Oh, cool.

I visited an ER once in my life and a scribe was in the room with me when the doctor saw me. He got all my shit down right exactly as I said it, had his little stenographer's machine right there on a little dolly. This was my first practical realization of the existence of this specific function, but of course it made perfect sense.

Expand on your job, I'm curious. Liabilities, accuracy of information, etc. Presumably you have a lot of exposure too and have to be closer to the legal side of things than the others.

You don't consider drowning your brain with morphine and Xanax "nuking your problems away?"

>why the fuck would you prescribe shitty codeine when nature has provided us with morphine?

Because he tries manage pain, not get the patient high as a kite and addicted. If codeine is enough then it's enough.

>Why would you prescribe a shitty antidepressant for an anxiety disorder when there are goddamn actual fucking useful benzodiazepines readily available?

Because benzo is problematic, strongly addictive and great potential for recreational use.

>instead of prescribing something as useful as DXM
Would cost you your license. It's not a free for all drug prescription race, you cannot just splurge out random drugs for fun. You have to base prescriptions on indications and contraindications. So even if some old pharmaceutical tier drug (like Ketamine) shows promise for treatment of depression in a new study you can't just freely hammer a patient with it and see if it works.

DXM is also highly unpredictable. I'm sure people can have life-changing realizations on it (as they could with any dissociative/hallucinogen) but you can never predict that they will. More often than not the trip can be horrifying. Not to mention you're basically incapacitated while you're on it.

OP is a retarded faggot.

>you are taught to try the easiest cheapest treatment first. Then, if that doesn't work, move on to the more expensive ones. That's why the famous "drink water, take motrin, change your socks for a broken leg" joke is true.

Not really, it's a lot about effectiveness and side effects. Cost are only occasionally considered. When it comes to broken bones and cancer they go straight for the best treatment option and costs be damned.

>At least in my understanding an x-ray will only pick up bones, but they insisted on doing it first before they gave me a real cat scan.

CT scans are more harmful to you, contrast agents can damage your kidneys and the radiation dose, while relatively small nowdays is still accumulated. If they can see what's wrong on a planar xray then no reason to risk harm from CTing you.

DMT > SSRI > Placebo

Personally I prefer Jungle Tea since LA is completely covered in hallucinogenic and sedative plants (explains a lot, really).
[White/Blue Morning Glory, Passionfruit Flower, Acanecia Confusa, Jimson Weed, Delos, Mimosa + Sour Apple Kool Aid]

Nootropics and Oxytocin also supposedly have strong emotional and cognitive effects.

Interesting facts:
1.) SSRIs have been proven to be genotoxic
2.) SSRIs have been proven to cause Serotonin Pooling
3.) SSRIs have been proven to cause Synaptic Blowout
4.) Chemical Imbalance is a hypothesis, not a theory
5.) There are plants that actually show comparative or better effects than psychiatric and painkilling drugs with less side effects

Can these interesting facts be backed up with peer reviewed scholarly sources without resorting to a new-age, homeopathic conspiracy site?

I'm not saying SSRI's have never caused these things, but where's the proof that it's common and not an anomaly?

>There are plants that actually show comparative or better effects than psychiatric and painkilling drugs with less side effects

All drugs are essentially derivatives from chemicals found in plants in the first place, moron.

Addiction potential

>Can these interesting facts be backed up with peer reviewed scholarly sources without resorting to a new-age, homeopathic conspiracy site?

Yes.

1.) Genotoxicity: Psychiatrist Evangelos Katsioulis
2.) Serotonin Pooling: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118509/
3.) Tardive Dyskinesia [it was believed only antipsychotics caused this; research shows that SSRIs also cause this]
psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201106/now-antidepressant-induced-chronic-depression-has-name-tardive-dysphoria
4.) I don't have to prove that, it's common knowledge.
5.) There are quite a few, but I haven't bookmarked then. I'll concede on this one, although I had just read several medical journals on some plants that were substantially better at reducing blood pressure than current market medications with no know side effects [after 7 years of studying].

As for SSRIs? Because 100% of the studies that study acute dosage, incremental dosage, and long term use always point to brain damage.
This is why they're controversial.
The medical theory is that the chemical imbalance hypothesis is a crap and people are just being sedated and stimulated with toxic substances.

So because I'm right, I'm a moron.?
Ok then.
The idea that because they've been derived from plants doesn't mean they're better.
You can get Ricin from Castor Beans.
*facepalm*
Sometime concentrations are worse.

And some of the most potent nuerotoxins can be found in nature too.

Sometimes plants are worse.

What's your point?

Yes, sometimes they're worse, but to call me a moron for suggesting the fact that sometimes they're better doesn't make any sense.
I wasn't promoting new ageism, so your reactionary psychopathic rage was unfounded.
You rape yourself to death with a rusty kitchen knife you grade-a asshole.

>I wasn't promoting new ageism

sure ;) Go chew on some Valerian root an call it a night, you cock smoking hippie faggot.

>3.) Tardive Dyskinesia
>posts link about tardive dysphoria

good job with the reading comprehension

>unhappy people take SSRIs because they can't change what they have to deal with in life to be happy
sorry your part of a cult and unhappy with your sex life, mom

Because opioids cause some of the most severe forms of addiction known.

>the whole part about anxiety and depression

lol

can confirm

>massive pharmaceutical companies don't exist
>said companies don't pressure doctors to prescribe said companies drugs

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118509/
>Serotonin pooling
when you used this word I thought you were bullshitting because I imagined "serotonin pooling" to be a discription of increased levels of synaptic serotonin due to inhibition of the selective serotonin reuptake channel.

The title of your source is about the use of SSRI's by mothers during pregnancy and the effect it has on their offspring.

You are dumb as fuck m8

>1.) Genotoxicity: Psychiatrist Evangelos Katsioulis

"During his PhD in Psychopharmacology in the School of Medicine of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Katsioulis contributed on the cytogenetic research of the genotoxicity of the Benzodiazepines and of the antipsychotic medication"

First off, benzodiazapines are NOT selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors - not even close.

Second, the anti-psychotic medications he studied for genotoxicity were Levomepromazine and Ziprasidone. Again, neither of those are SSRI's.

Third, these studies were done on the in vitro effects of the drugs when taken by pregnant women.

I agree with this user you're retarded as fuck and should be castrated.

the people who think they're smarter than their doctors always end up being dumb as fuck. most, like OP, are basically just skimming over the wikipedia articles of a few medical issues and a few drugs and deciding that they're now a genius pharmacologist

its hard to even address the points OP is trying to make because they're so absurd and show a lack of any sort of basic understanding of what he's trying to talk about... it'd be like arguing with someone who can't speak english

Then give it to them, it's cleaner and safer than them going out, robbing someone for money, then going to a shady dealer to buy tainted drugs.

Idiots like you do more harm than good.

>Then give it to them,

Why? So he can be accused of malpractice and lose his license?

Idiots like you don't see both sides of the issue or think things through.

So that they can OD faster?

So that supply can be reduced for those who actually need it?

So that the credibility of medicine as an institution can decrease?

>do something objectively bad for the patient

God damn it Veeky Forums. You were supposed to be smart.

I remember I chugged a bottle of cough syrup in college, and while it wasn't enough for the full dissociative effects, for the next couple of days I had brain fog and for like a week and a half I had minor buccinator spasms. Super spooky