Help from UK members needed regarding benzo script possibly being taken off me

[3dmusic]

I'd never call it "maintenance" that would imply you're going to get a continuation of the service/medication. From me, you'd get a reduction (within guidelines/trust/circumstances) and if you weren't happy with that. I'd refer you to the drug and alcohol team/DTP, who will reduce you regardless. I will always call it management. You MANAGE the reduction, you don't MAINTAIN it. Don't like it, have a circle jerk, get reduced anyway.

It's win/win either way for the NHS/DTP's on the whole. Those that want to get clean, will stick at it, those that don't / "can't", get kicked off, back to using illicitly.

Certain ways around it of course, especially if you can pay for treatment privately. But then I'd hazard a guess that most people seeking methadone "management", can't afford to be treated privately.

It's valilum, and its unsafe not to come off when your body isn't ready for cuts, it injures the GABA system.
The patient has to be in control of their own taper, not some doctor who isn't inside the patient's body.
Reducing too quick is asking for a failed taper, relapse, or worse, turning to some other drug, like alcohol, as I wouldn't have a clue where to get safe valium wihtout a script, as online illicit suppliers could be putting any old poison into their pills, so drug services are not getting people clean, they are even potentially creating a revolving door service, rush someone off valium = failed taper = relapse/drug/alcohol misuse = return to drug services, costing them more money, where's the sense in that?
I'm not saying drug services are bad for heroin or alcohol addicts, they can substitute these drugs and detox them, but for benzos, its a whole different ballgame.

 

[LoginNotSecure]

It's valilum, and its unsafe not to come off when your body isn't ready for cuts, it injures the GABA system.
The patient has to be in control of their own taper, not some doctor who isn't inside the patient's body.
Reducing too quick is asking for a failed taper, relapse, or worse, turning to some other drug, like alcohol, as I wouldn't have a clue where to get safe valium wihtout a script, as online illicit suppliers could be putting any old poison into their pills, so drug services are not getting people clean, they are even potentially creating a revolving door service, rush someone off valium = failed taper = relapse/drug/alcohol misuse = return to drug services, costing them more money, where's the sense in that?
I'm not saying drug services are bad for heroin or alcohol addicts, they can substitute these drugs and detox them, but for benzos, its a whole different ballgame.

My post wasn't in reply to you, the quote didn't work on my post for some reason.

 

[3dmusic]

My post wasn't in reply to you, the quote didn't work on my post for some reason.

Please accept my apologies.

 

[novaveritas]

I'd never call it "maintenance" that would imply you're going to get a continuation of the service/medication. From me, you'd get a reduction (within guidelines/trust/circumstances) and if you weren't happy with that. I'd refer you to the drug and alcohol team/DTP, who will reduce you regardless. I will always call it management. You MANAGE the reduction, you don't MAINTAIN it. Don't like it, have a circle jerk, get reduced anyway.

It's win/win either way for the NHS/DTP's on the whole. Those that want to get clean, will stick at it, those that don't / "can't", get kicked off, back to using illicitly.

Certain ways around it of course, especially if you can pay for treatment privately. But then I'd hazard a guess that most people seeking methadone "management", can't afford to be treated privately.

How is kicking someone off therapy onto illicit drugs a win for the NHS? you complete Walt.

The costs of the inevitable fallout land squarely back on the NHS and the rest of society, Buprenophine and methadone are cheap, particularly the latter is super cheap around about £1 a day. Heroin on the other hand is a just a tad more expensive where do you think that money comes from? Who pays for the treating the inevitable ODs.

If you think about the bigger picture, you clearly haven't, it doesn't matter if someone stays on methadone indefinitely, its pretty cheap and much cheaper than the alternative. If the patient wants to reduce that's fine, if they don't then whilst that isn't as good a health outcome as reduction and abstention it is a hell of a lot better than the patient falling out of the system. or rather being pushed out of the system by medical moralizing.

Doctors need to understand that they work for the patients not for the NHS. Sometimes pragmatism is unpleasant but suck it up buttercup.

 

[LoginNotSecure]

How is kicking someone off therapy onto illicit drugs a win for the NHS?

If someone wants help in abstaining from illicit drug use, you accept the reduction and help you are offered, or you don't. In which case the person clearly doesn't want to quit, or they want the drugs/medication to tide you over. The NHS and all the other various support teams and networks, even charities work to guidelines that have been proven to be effective.

Unfortunately, the NHS, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't hand out willpower as freely as the methadone.

The cost of the medication is a moot point, it's still a drain on NHS funding, (and services) - which is a finite amount. However, don't think I feel this way with just drug users/addicts. I believe that any user who places a drain on the NHS services should be made to pay for their treatment.

COPD because you smoked? PAY UP.
Cirrhosis of the liver because you drank? PAY UP
Amputation due to IVDU? PAY UP
Surgery because you drove like an idiot? PAY UP

Also pretty far and out there, but I also think potential parents should be means tested and pass a practicality/education standards test before being able to conceive. Should whittle down the number of parents spending a life on the welfare state.

 

[novaveritas]

If someone wants help in abstaining from illicit drug use, you accept the reduction and help you are offered, or you don't. In which case the person clearly doesn't want to quit, or they want the drugs/medication to tide you over. The NHS and all the other various support teams and networks, even charities work to guidelines that have been proven to be effective.

Unfortunately, the NHS, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't hand out willpower as freely as the methadone.

The cost of the medication is a moot point, it's still a drain on NHS funding, (and services) - which is a finite amount. However, don't think I feel this way with just drug users/addicts. I believe that any user who places a drain on the NHS services should be made to pay for their treatment.

COPD because you smoked? PAY UP.
Cirrhosis of the liver because you drank? PAY UP
Amputation due to IVDU? PAY UP
Surgery because you drove like an idiot? PAY UP

Also pretty far and out there, but I also think potential parents should be means tested and pass a practicality/education standards test before being able to conceive. Should whittle down the number of parents spending a life on the welfare state.

In the great scheme of things you probably are a more severe drain on resources.

You are making moralistic Victorian arguments based on whether a patient deserves treatment, whether they are deserving pauper to use Victorian parlance.

This has no place in modern medicine and it seems you, Walt, have no place in modern medicine either.

 

[Forever Changes]

If someone wants help in abstaining from illicit drug use, you accept the reduction and help you are offered, or you don't. In which case the person clearly doesn't want to quit, or they want the drugs/medication to tide you over. The NHS and all the other various support teams and networks, even charities work to guidelines that have been proven to be effective.

Unfortunately, the NHS, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't hand out willpower as freely as the methadone.

The cost of the medication is a moot point, it's still a drain on NHS funding, (and services) - which is a finite amount. However, don't think I feel this way with just drug users/addicts. I believe that any user who places a drain on the NHS services should be made to pay for their treatment.

COPD because you smoked? PAY UP.
Cirrhosis of the liver because you drank? PAY UP
Amputation due to IVDU? PAY UP
Surgery because you drove like an idiot? PAY UP

Also pretty far and out there, but I also think potential parents should be means tested and pass a practicality/education standards test before being able to conceive. Should whittle down the number of parents spending a life on the welfare state.

I think you're deliberately trolling, but anyway...

The NHS is supposed to be a Universal Healthcare system for everybody, whether they pay their taxes or not. I don't necessarily agree that that's the best way of running a country's healthcare system, but that's what it is.

You want controversial, and talk about the real drain on NHS resources? How about elderly people (the 'bed blockers')? Should they all be euthhanised? Or the seemingly endless stream of immigrants who come here and use the NHS without having paid a penny into the system? Should that be stopped?

The NHS is in a permanent 'crisis' and it doesn't matter which party is in power or how much cash they throw at it - it's a busted flush - it was a utopian concept in the 1940s that worked for a while but not in today's world -it's no longer fit for purpose

 

[steewith2ees]

I think you're deliberately trolling, but anyway...

The NHS is supposed to be a Universal Healthcare system for everybody, whether they pay their taxes or not. I don't necessarily agree that that's the best way of running a country's healthcare system, but that's what it is.

You want controversial, and talk about the real drain on NHS resources? How about elderly people (the 'bed blockers')? Should they all be euthhanised? Or the seemingly endless stream of immigrants who come here and use the NHS without having paid a penny into the system? Should that be stopped?

The NHS is in a permanent 'crisis' and it doesn't matter which party is in power or how much cash they throw at it - it's a busted flush - it's a concept that may have worked in the 1940s but not in today's world

This is the second post I have taken issue with regarding the NHS that you have made but while I was tempted to respond to the earlier one in the services defence, this second effort is more difficult to ignore as if I am being totally honest with myself, your pessimism is ultimately unpalatable as you raise what are sadly valid points. While my counterpoints are anecdotal in nature and idealistically naive, logic suggests that long term sustainability is an unavoidable issue and leaves me fearful for the future.

However, my pie in the sky defence is idealistic in nature and stems from the professional canonisation of Nye Bevin as presented by the University during the first year of my nurse training and while the whole shebang may ultimately turn out as an, albeit unintended, pyramid scheme, the service is still (just about) afloat and as such we should not give up aspiring to its founding principles, an aspiration that can be simply reinforced by looking at the disgraceful system in place in the USA, lead by the all powerful insurance companies who's role it is to make as much capital by way of patient premiums while simultaneously making every effort to avoid honouring every legitimate claim.

While I cannot dispute the fact that you are right, I also do not believe that we should give up on it and anyone who's health is seriously jeopardised due to bzd w/d will get seen and treated provided they are honest and motivated to comply. While DSP's do not usually deal with bzd dependence as proactively as they do with alcohol or opioids, they can detox people if needed (my consultant has offered to Rx me a supervised diazepam taper should I ever find myself unable to stop taking them on my own.)

 

[3dmusic]

In the great scheme of things you probably are a more severe drain on resources.

You are making moralistic Victorian arguments based on whether a patient deserves treatment, whether they are deserving pauper to use Victorian parlance.

This has no place in modern medicine and it seems you, Walt, have no place in modern medicine either.

Thanks for your post.
This thread has got a bit derailed.
BZD withdrawal is not tenable with drug services, as the golden rule with someone genuinely wanting to come of them is to taper at their own rate, as they know their own bodies, and what rate they can cope with.
What I take issue with is the UK's fixation on getting people off BZD's quickly, as this causes injury to the GABA system, and ultimately creates a revolving door system, ie Drug services rushing people off benzos too quick, failed tapers, clients relapsing, or worse, turning to alcohol etc and ending up back usurping more NHS resources, when all it takes is a doctor with vision to recognise that BZD tapers need to be done at the patient's rate, and by that I don't mean, staying on the same dose, I mean reducing safely and slowly enough not to cause further injury to the GABA system.
The horrible symptoms of BZD withdrawals cause problems in themselves if tapers are rushed and control is taken out of the patients hands.
For patients who just want to stay on the same dose, counselling should be given to get to the bottom of their need to stay on drugs, so they become motivated to get off them.
For patients who genuinely want to get off them, compassion and empathy is in order, to allow the patient to reduce at a rate that is suitable for them, to avoid further damage to an already downeregulated GABA system, so that they can make a full recovery and put the mess behind them, thus, avoiding more cost and hassle to the NHS.

 

[Forever Changes]

This is the second post I have taken issue with regarding the NHS that you have made but while I was tempted to respond to the earlier one in the services defence, this second effort is more difficult to ignore as if I am being totally honest with myself, your pessimism is ultimately unpalatable as you raise what are sadly valid points. While my counterpoints are anecdotal in nature and idealistically naive, logic suggests that long term sustainability is an unavoidable issue and leaves me fearful for the future.

However, my pie in the sky defence is idealistic in nature and stems from the professional canonisation of Nye Bevin as presented by the University during the first year of my nurse training and while the whole shebang may ultimately turn out as an, albeit unintended, pyramid scheme, the service is still (just about) afloat and as such we should not give up aspiring to its founding principles, an aspiration that can be simply reinforced by looking at the disgraceful system in place in the USA, lead by the all powerful insurance companies who's role it is to make as much capital by way of patient premiums while simultaneously making every effort to avoid honouring every legitimate claim.

While I cannot dispute the fact that you are right, I also do not believe that we should give up on it and anyone who's health is seriously jeopardised due to bzd w/d will get seen and treated provided they are honest and motivated to comply. While DSP's do not usually deal with bzd dependence as proactively as they do with alcohol or opioids, they can detox people if needed (my consultant has offered to Rx me a supervised diazepam taper should I ever find myself unable to stop taking them on my own.)

believe me, I absolutely don't want to see a USA-style healthcare system here. And I absolutely think that people trying to get off drink and drugs should be given full help by the NHS

It's not that I don't think there are good people working in the NHS, but the institution as a whole is like an often dysfunctional behemoth that is unsustainable in its present form and needs fundamental structural changes IMO (or more broader - and more controversial - societal changes). At least that's been my experience with it

my parents - who are not and have never been wealthy people - have become so disillusioned with the NHS that they've taken out very expensive private health insurance. They just don't trust the NHS to care for them as they become older and potentially sicker

 

[LoginNotSecure]

I think you're deliberately trolling, but anyway...

The NHS is supposed to be a Universal Healthcare system for everybody, whether they pay their taxes or not. I don't necessarily agree that that's the best way of running a country's healthcare system, but that's what it is.

You want controversial, and talk about the real drain on NHS resources? How about elderly people (the 'bed blockers')? Should they all be euthhanised? Or the seemingly endless stream of immigrants who come here and use the NHS without having paid a penny into the system? Should that be stopped?

The NHS is in a permanent 'crisis' and it doesn't matter which party is in power or how much cash they throw at it - it's a busted flush - it was a utopian concept in the 1940s that worked for a while but not in today's world -it's no longer fit for purpose

Not trolling.

Regarding the "bed blockers" - if you suddenly wiped out all of the people who are in hospital due to my "PAY UP" scenario, I'd hazard a wild guess in saying that most hospital trusts (barring A&E admissions) would be running at a 15-20% capacity. Stopping the influx of immigrants (on the whole) would be an excellent idea. No treatment before you can prove you're a citizen. Even implementing a more robust immigration policy would be a start, something akin to Australia's. A certain skill set/affordability before entry. - But that's getting way off topic.

Moralistically Victorian/Hitler'esq arguments aside, the NHS will continue to work until it ceases to exist, and then privately funded or not, we're all fucked.

 

[3dmusic]

No disrespect , this thread is being derailed from the OP

 

[novaveritas]

Not trolling.

Regarding the "bed blockers" - if you suddenly wiped out all of the people who are in hospital due to my "PAY UP" scenario, I'd hazard a wild guess in saying that most hospital trusts (barring A&E admissions) would be running at a 15-20% capacity. Stopping the influx of immigrants (on the whole) would be an excellent idea. No treatment before you can prove you're a citizen. Even implementing a more robust immigration policy would be a start, something akin to Australia's. A certain skill set/affordability before entry. - But that's getting way off topic.

Moralistically Victorian/Hitler'esq arguments aside, the NHS will continue to work until it ceases to exist, and then privately funded or not, we're all fucked.

OK Walt, what is your "professional" advice for the OP?

otherwise Foxtrot Oscar Tory Boy and start your own thread.

 

[3dmusic]

I think its best to keep this thread on track, with the greatest of respect, it wasn't about politics.

 

[LoginNotSecure]

OK Walt, what is your "professional" advice for the OP?

otherwise Foxtrot Oscar Tory Boy and start your own thread.

I don't vote, never have, never will. I'm not even on the electoral roll, Hun.

 

[steewith2ees]

I don't vote, never have, never will. I'm not even on the electoral roll, Hun.

On the surface, I would imagine that statement would attract a fair amount of criticism from some with respect to wasting the opportunity, but without being arrogant enough to believe I can second guess your intentions, would it be fair to say that this is born out of an understandable disillusion with both politicians and the largely stagnant politics they mostly practise?

Of course I could be totally wrong, or I could be sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, or both but after spending the last few weeks following the fascinating but depressing farce regarding the impeachment proceedings against the US President, I feel lucky to have the system we currently have, as while it is seemingly as broken as it ever has been, it seems apparent that democracy no longer exists in the US and probably hasn't for a long time. A 2 party system cannot even aspire to represent nearly 330 million individuals and while 45 has brought the office into spectacular and unprecedented disrepute, it is clear that the democratic presidents within my lifetime were as badly behaved as most, the only difference being that they were more attractively packaged, in Clintons case thanks to his folksy charm and in Obama's due to his intellect.

 

[entheologian]

OP buy yourself a testing kit and source your benzos on the dark web. Take out what you need for a couple of days and post the rest back to yourself or get a friend to hold them for you. I was paying less than 4p per dose of alprazolam. Then seriously consider swapping to kava kava

 

[Wilson Wilson]

Okay ignoring the derailing here - OP, do you have a few hundred quid to spend on a private psychiatrist? Normally they cost a grand for initial consultation but there's websites where you can speak to a licensed UK psychiatrist via video chats and pay about £250-300.

If you can afford this, I highly recommend looking for a psychiatrist who is likely to be sympathetic towards you - that means an older one who is not an addiction specialist (the addiction specialists have only seen the dark side of these drugs generally speaking, while psychs who treat patients with anxiety will have seen the positive effect they can have).

Now a private doctor, unlike an NHS doctor, has no obligation to follow the NICE guidelines and therefore is much more free to follow their own judgement. If you come across sincere and discuss your existing script and that the NHS is taking it off you, then you will likely get a private script off the right sympathetic doc.

Keep in mind also that a private doc does not need to see your NHS records. They have no idea what is on there. So you don't need to mention any history of addiction at all. You can just show your existing script and say you got it for GAD.

After you get the script you will have to pay around £30-40 for a repeat each month from the private psych, but the cost of the actual drugs from the pharmacy will be as low as £5-10. So possibly less than the NHS prescription charge.

For some personal experience I went to a private psychiatrist saying I self-medicated with diazepam and managed to get a diazepam script after trying the usual lot like SSRI's, pregabalin, etc. But you have an NHS script already so you are better off pushing that angle and not mentioning illicit use.

You can if you want keep fighting the NHS but it's a long bureaucratic process and this will make sure you get a legit script continued if the NHS nicks yours off you.

PM me and I can link you a good site for video appointments with psychiatrists.

 

[Forever Changes]

I don't vote, never have, never will. I'm not even on the electoral roll, Hun.

if you don't vote, you can't complain

 

[LoginNotSecure]

if you don't vote, you can't complain

Course I fucking can. It's what the British do best.