Basically, this is an intelligent article.
Basically, this is an intelligent article. Unfortunately, there are a number of factors that play into this. Many meds do not need a prescription. Assuming you have insurance it may only pay for limited visits and afaik there is no code for "monitoring to see if there's a side effect visit". Controlling your blood pressure might keep you alive and functioning versus a stroke. Etc.
I'm curious how they addressed age in the study, and how they defined depression. I mean, yes, they used a presumed to be validated screening questionnaire, but what does that mean in terms of people's quality of life and daily function? With respect, are people suicidal, or worried about paying their bills? There's a big difference, there. What dose and for how long do you have to take a med before it has been reported to be associated with depression?
It seems to me that the pharm prof is suffering from if all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. Look through the PDR or some other professional medication reference for the list of side effects reported in trials or after public release of medications sometime. If you think the disclaimers on TV ads for meds are amusing, these lists should leave you rofling. You can't put a warning label on for every little thing. Things that will kill people, maim people, absolutely. Things that might happen to 1 in a hundred or a thousand people that may or may not impact their activities of daily living or quality of life - I think the return is poor, there.
We already know that we don't know jack about what happens to men or women physiologically if you make it over 65-70 years of age. We're just barely starting to study any of this. We already know that the mere fact of polypharmacy is problematic at any age, moreso over 65+. God help you if you want to know what happens to women or people of color generally speaking, anyway. Most of our studies are still primarily white men.
Then there're people like my mom, who saw something on the internet/ was told something by a friend/ read it in consumer reports, etc. She is literally refusing to take a medication that was helping her because one of those reliable sources told her it would cause "kidney damage". Not only was the med helping her, it was preventing potentially serious harm in the long term, as well as pain on a regular basis. She has not spoken with a doctor about this. Because she read it, she knows. She is not unique in this regard. She does not need another excuse to refuse appropriate medical treatment because what if.
So yes, you need to be informed and it's totally reasonable to discuss whether you should be monitored for mood and affect with your doctor. Frankly, you're supposed to be screened for certain stuff regularly depending on age anyway. Assuming insurance will pay for a visit that long. Assuming you have insurance.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/12/619274492/1-in-3-adults-in-the-u-s-take-medications-that-can-cause-depression
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/12/619274492/1-in-3-adults-in-the-u-s-take-medications-that-can-cause-depression
I'm curious how they addressed age in the study, and how they defined depression. I mean, yes, they used a presumed to be validated screening questionnaire, but what does that mean in terms of people's quality of life and daily function? With respect, are people suicidal, or worried about paying their bills? There's a big difference, there. What dose and for how long do you have to take a med before it has been reported to be associated with depression?
It seems to me that the pharm prof is suffering from if all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. Look through the PDR or some other professional medication reference for the list of side effects reported in trials or after public release of medications sometime. If you think the disclaimers on TV ads for meds are amusing, these lists should leave you rofling. You can't put a warning label on for every little thing. Things that will kill people, maim people, absolutely. Things that might happen to 1 in a hundred or a thousand people that may or may not impact their activities of daily living or quality of life - I think the return is poor, there.
We already know that we don't know jack about what happens to men or women physiologically if you make it over 65-70 years of age. We're just barely starting to study any of this. We already know that the mere fact of polypharmacy is problematic at any age, moreso over 65+. God help you if you want to know what happens to women or people of color generally speaking, anyway. Most of our studies are still primarily white men.
Then there're people like my mom, who saw something on the internet/ was told something by a friend/ read it in consumer reports, etc. She is literally refusing to take a medication that was helping her because one of those reliable sources told her it would cause "kidney damage". Not only was the med helping her, it was preventing potentially serious harm in the long term, as well as pain on a regular basis. She has not spoken with a doctor about this. Because she read it, she knows. She is not unique in this regard. She does not need another excuse to refuse appropriate medical treatment because what if.
So yes, you need to be informed and it's totally reasonable to discuss whether you should be monitored for mood and affect with your doctor. Frankly, you're supposed to be screened for certain stuff regularly depending on age anyway. Assuming insurance will pay for a visit that long. Assuming you have insurance.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/12/619274492/1-in-3-adults-in-the-u-s-take-medications-that-can-cause-depression
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/12/619274492/1-in-3-adults-in-the-u-s-take-medications-that-can-cause-depression
Comments
Post a Comment