Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdruxn | Hacker News Reader

Because at the end of the day, they still work and truly do help a vast number of people.

"Really work" in this case meaning probable addiction and potential death in exchange for a month or two of pain relief. If it "really worked" as advertised (maximum of one dose needed per 12 hours) we wouldn't have this problem at all. OxyContin's much-marketed delayed release mechanism is BS and it's costing thousands of lives and livelihoods.

That's highly inaccurate. Opioids are the most prescribed drug in the US. The vast majority never become addicted.

And if you have an issue with the 12 hour dosing of Oxycontin, take it up with the FDA. They approved it.

I had surgery in 2011 and was prescribed OxyContin for post-operative pain.

I was very satisfied with the therapy as I had very little post-operative discomfort.

I took the medicine for several days, the prescription ran out, and I felt no incentive to request a refill nor did I turn to street drugs.

I am truly sorry for people that struggle with addiction. I have family members who struggle with that and I know the devastation that it causes.

However, I do not want the government to eliminate an effective class of medications, either through banning them or through scaring doctors into not using them.

The problem, of course, is the misuse. Either by doctors who misprescribe (chronic pain relief is a common use case for opioids, and probably an exceptionally bad one), patients who misuse or abuse, and marketing companies like Purdue who push for profit.

The question, to me, is this: where do we balance benefits/freedoms from overall harm?

This is also the crux of many issues like alcohol abuse, gun rights, etc. Is it more harmful for the government to intervene than to not attempt to legislate away the source of the problem, at the cost of losing something valued by people in the society?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com