The Dead-End Agents


My first panic attacked occurred in the middle of a volleyball match. I was 21, the players all U. S. Army, the location a remote island in the Aleutian chain. We were all there to eavesdrop on the evil Soviet Empire, but today we’d taken a break from our duties to relieve the boredom of routine.

It happened this way:

Early in the game, I leaped up at the net to deflect a strike from the other side when, with no warning, I was seized by panic: a powerful hand squeezed my chest, another gripped my throat. I gasped for air, my legs turned rubbery, my body trembled, my heart beat erratically. I collapsed to my knees and felt the world contract, time suspended in this vacuum. Dread, like a black rose, blossomed inside me.

Fast-forward fifty-plus years. I am perched on an examination table in the clinic approved by my insurance company. A very young female doctor—call her Dr. K—has just advised me that, given the excellent results of blood tests over the past year and a half, I can stop taking my diabetes medication. And, by the way, she asks, what about getting off your paroxetine and bupropion–the very drugs that keep panic at bay? Try counseling, perhaps?

Ah, yes, behavioral therapy. Just what the doctor ordered.

“I’ve been fighting panic attacks since I was 21,” I explain to her in a voice that is more rebuff than reason. “I spent thirty-some years controlling my attacks with pure willpower.” I saw no reason, I told the doctor, to return to that battle when my prescription drugs were already working as advertised, keeping all hints of panic at bay. Nipping that evil flower in the bud, so to speak.

End of conversation, as far as I was concerned. Dr. K must have sensed my determination because she didn’t contest my decision, only suggested that I think about it. This was not the first time I had run into Dr. K’s resistance to prescribing medications.

About a year earlier, I had injured my back, probably a seizing-up of the muscles, a problem I had experienced at irregular intervals since wrenching my back in my first job out of the army. Nevertheless, it was extremely painful and debilitating, and “walking it off” was off the discussion table: I could barely stand, let alone put one foot ahead of the other.

What I really needed, I told Dr. K, was a prescription for a painkiller like hydrocodone that I could take just before bed; otherwise, I would get no sleep and little rest. Which also meant I would have little energy and stamina for rehabilitating my back through exercise. I also reminded her of the well-known side-effects of high doses of ibuprofen or naproxen—I was especially worried about its effect on my liver. Finally, I told her, decades of experience with painkillers proved that I was not going to become addicted to hydrocodone. I had no desire to live my life in a blissful fog.

Likely motivated more by my intransigence than my logic, Dr. K was finally driven to seek the advice of the clinic director. I was more than a little curious and anxious about how her consultation would go.

Moments later, in walked the director–call him Dr. Big. He was there, I was sure, to size me up. In the diminuitive exam room, he seemed oversized. He was a big, affable guy. Big hands, big smile. We shook, smiled, made small talk. Drug seeker or hapless old man? he must have been asking himself. Our brief encounter over, he left the exam room with Dr. K in tow.

When she returned, Dr. K passed me a prescription for the lowest dose of hydrocodone with acetaminophen, a combination that is supposed to discourage overdoses, I read somewhere.

Over the next week, I used the hydrocodone sparingly, usually breaking one tablet in half in the evening before bed. It was enough to take the edge off the pain, let me fall asleep. And knowing that Dr. K probably would never again prescribe a narcotic painkiller for me, I was conserving my 30-day supply for the inevitable next episode of wrenched back.

*          *          *

Getting patients off medications is playing out less like a fad than a crusade these days. A crusade supposedly launched in the patient’s interest. Out of, I could say, an abundance of caution—except it’s a principle little applied in the United States unless it meets some political objective. Indeed, little attention is given to any problem unless it serves a political purpose.

In the case of drugs, the drive for a drug-free America is brought to us by our old friends at the Drug Enforcement Administration and all its government and non-governmental minions–starting with the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to  the International Narcotics Control Board, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, the National Association of State Controlled Substance Authorities, and the Federation of State Medical Boards; as well as, of course, the American Medical Association.

Its “war on drugs” having been flagged a failure by many in the fields of drugs research, medicine, and even law enforcement, the DEA could only have licked its chops at the chance to reinvigorate a dying campaign.

Like the National Rifle Association, the DEA has little use for objective research. Much as the neo-conservative club in Congress forbids any research on guns that might reflect badly on the gun industry or suggest possible effective measures to contain gun violence, so any report on illicit or regulated drugs, based on DEA-funded research, begins with the premise that a negative finding must be the result. [Anyone who doubts this statement should look up the DEA’s most recent finding that marijuana continues to be a dangerous drug—a policy of self-promotion over good science that flies in the face of evidence that cannabis has caused precisely zero deaths, ever.]

Handing over, or ceding by default, control of a drug campaign to the DEA guarantees more trouble ahead. President Richard M. Nixon set the tone for the modern effort to eradicate drug abuse when in June 1971 he gave it the self-important title “War on Drugs”.

Even statistics on opioid use are driven by law enforcement reports, which amass data designed to scare us just enough to justify more money and a larger headcount for the DEA. Only the Department of Homeland Security has a bigger claim on fear as a motivator and justifier of massive spending, personnel, and intrusiveness. Add ineffectuality to that list in both instances.

The trouble with DEA’s control of the opioid epidemic, as the CDC has declared it, is its limited supply of tools to bring opioid abuse under control. In the DEA’s hands, all such tools add up to coercion. Taking drug makers to court, raiding pharmacies, putting physicians on trial—such highly publicized stunts by the DEA have left primary care physicians, like my Dr. K, extremely leery of finding themselves on the agency’s blacklist. Loss of license and all that goes with that loss may scare doctors, but it has little impact on the problem.

That’s because so much of the pain-killer epidemic is fed by the passing of drugs from one patient’s cabinet to a friend or relative. This is certainly the case with teenagers, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Meanwhile, older patients living with chronic pain may find their supply of painkillers cut off. Doctors will recommend (as mine did) a host of non-drug therapies for pain, from exercise to meditation. Some of these “multi-modal” approaches to pain management can, in fact, reduce the pain elderly people experience.

But here’s the catch: most insurance companies, including Medicare, do not cover the cost of these alternatives. Catch 22. And some patients will still need opioid pain relief in conjunction with these alternative modalities.

When they do, writes New York Times columnist (The New Old Age) Paula Span, “[They’ll] get more questions, hear about more about alternatives—and take home fewer pills” [“New Opioid Limits Challenge the Pain-Prone,” 6/6/16.] Online.

And it’s our age cohort that needs pain relief most. In that same Times column, Span notes: “Older patients are more apt than younger ones to hurt from musculoskeletal disorders like arthritis, from nerves damaged by diabetes or shingles, from cancer, from multiple causes all at once. They have more surgery.”

At the same time, traditional over-the-counter (OTC) pain relievers “like ibuprofen and naprosen,” she notes, can cause “bleeding, elevated blood pressure, reduced kidney function.” These two OTC drugs are the ones suggested by my Dr. K.

Even if an older patient manages to get a prescription for an opioid, these days her physician won’t be able to call in a refill. The patient, no matter how debilitated, will have to make an office visit to have her needs evaluated by her doctor–every month. “Those can be onerous requirements for older people in pain,” Span writes.

In short, DEA dictates have brought to a standstill the campaign to overcome decades of under-prescribing for pain. So the Agency has brought us seniors and others back to square one. Not because caution in prescribing couldn’t be balanced with the need for pain control–something most doctors have been doing for decades–but because a regimen based on criminality, including midnight drugs raids, incarceration of users and doctors, and other draconian measures, sends doctors and patients scurrying for cover and makes the street trade in drugs flourish as a private enterprise.

As we “senior citizens” become an increasingly larger share of the U. S. population and the voting public, perhaps Congress will be forced to end its funding of the senseless war on drugs, which the non-governmental Drug Policy Alliance reports added up to 51 BILLION federal and state dollars in 2015. Legalize and regulate drugs and begin to funnel those funds into programs that deal with drug over-use as a public health issue, rather than as a crime.

Meanwhile, we must ask, how long before the Congress and the American public realize the drug war is a dead end?

Published by: DeanHove

Married, children, grands and great-grands. I have 3 sisters, all living in different states from each other and me. A couple of college degrees. Jobs all involved writing. I've counted them all up, the jobs I've held since I first bussed tables at 15: there were three in my teen years. Since then, I have held 8 full-time jobs, plus one long-term part-time job teaching college writing classes post-retirement. Haved lived in 8 states--I know, it does seem excessive. The relationship between jobs held and states lived in pretty much explains itself. If my cv seems vague/sketchy, it's because my blog is very much a creation of my critical faculties and my imagination--such as they are. If my writing seems "old-fashioned," it's because I learned . . . well, I'm in my 70s, a fact that pretty much explains everything. Except, perhaps, my progressive views. I'm with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who wrote: "I will not grow conservative with age." I also believe you shouldn't grow stupid with age. I think I live in the past mostly in my dreams, where I'm always late for class or with a work assignment. Which is odd, because I am punctual to a fault and cannot even imagine how people can procrastinate. Those two things aside, I have few virtues.

1 Comment

One thought on “The Dead-End Agents”

  1. Thanks Richard for this piece, I should have noticed it sooner. You really hit the nail on the head with this one. I don’t even know what to say, or where to begin. I know this issue first hand. Thankfully I am not in the position myself , but the person I am with is . My brother also has the same issues . In fact I just got off the phone with him.

    He told me his doctor who he has been seeing for several years, if not longer has told him he needs to find another doctor. He suggested the pain management places that seem to be everywhere. I know that he will not be able to function without the medication , as he can hardly walk. Is supposed to suddenly go to therapy, and start working out. He clearly has evidence of severe damage to the bones in his back. As far as I know we can not yet replace wore out bones with new ones. If they are bone rubbing bone, how does therapy help? His doctor wrote him a scrip yesterday, and said he couldn’t give him anymore. This doctor is in Marine City.
    He is the same doctor my boyfriend is seeing. Both my brother and boyfriend are 60 years old, and have extensive medical records for their conditions. I think what the FDA/DEA is doing is a slap on the back (like you need one).

    I would think the pharma lobbyists would be scrambling with cash and gifts to lawmakers. I am not sure if this issue is legislative or if the specific agency has the authority to make these policies.
    It has been coming to this for awhile, with coverage weekly in the media, so much so that it is to the point of saturation.
    Doctors are under pressure I understand, and since they instituted the no script refills, it cost the patient more money for doctor visits.

    Personally, I think if a person needs the drug or not, it should be their choice, I believe in decriminalization. I am saying this as a non-user of pain meds, or of any other recreational drugs. I do take anxiety and depression medication, which I am sure will be the next target.
    If they decriminalized it, there would be less need for the DEA, but that bureaucratic agency will never be stripped of any of its power and influence.

    What really pisses me off is, they claim it is a health and abuse issue. Cigarettes and alcohol have the same issues. I can understand a person drinking alcohol should be held accountable if they should drink and drive, as should someone that is high on drugs, but if it is used as prescribed and you are in your home. I think it oversteps your rights and freedoms.

    Where is the concern over health when it comes to unsafe drinking water, food inspection, the pollutants that are spewed in the air and water , and dumped in the soil. The radioactive waste and leaks from power plants. all of these issues are swept under the rug and ignored.
    We get much of our medicine from overseas, is it inspected and tested? We will or are already getting food products from China, which as we know has the worst record for safety and inspection. Those are okay and not a threat to out health. Why aren’t they? Why is it just pain meds that they vilify, and stigmatize the users?

    I feel bad for you, and the people in my life that are in the same situation. Maybe they want the suicide rate to go up, or the use of illegal street drugs. I hope I never have to face this. The doctor I see has a big sign on door saying she does not prescribe pain meds. I have seen that sign in other offices as well.

    Personally I don’t know why the government cares. I would think they would want everyone so distracted and unable to function, that they would not be capable of seeing or thinking. Wouldn’t it be better for them if we were all zombies. I guess the media already does a pretty good job of that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s