Just to clarify I don't doctor shop. I don't even know anyone who does. That said, I have to say...... no shit. Are you assuming that people don't know what laws are in place? I just don't get why every thread that someone says the word doctor turns into this. It's getting old and what you plan on accomplishing by telling someone that's already made a decision to go in and scam a doctor is beyond me. This is like telling someone drugs are bad. I'm 1000% positive that the guy who's ripping off his doctor is aware of their poor moral choices.
I have a hard time feeling bad for a doctor that was previously passing CIIs out like candy and is now forced to hold back. Did it ever cross your mind that the over use of drugs like oxy could be contributing factors. I'd just love to see some stats on how many doctor shoppers there are and all the week minded victim doctors there must be. I mean you guys need your meds and can't get em but these bad guys can?
As far as pharmaceutical companies not producing drugs for any reason get real. Ya the naloxone in suboxone prevents abuse, that's how it's different than subutex
It's called money, this is america, that's how things work. I hate to be the one to break this to ya but the companies and the govt don't give a fuck about you, they want your money and all they have to do is say "It's tamper proof" and off it goes to the doctors. I'd love to hear an example of what you're talking about.
No one said you doctor shopped. No one is attacking you. No need to be antagonistic here. Just a friendly discussion, right?
As far as saying "hey, maybe you shouldn't do that," or "have you thought about these kinds of consequences," or similar remarks, it's got nothing to do with whether the OP will actually change his behavior. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but there's little harm in him getting the viewpoint of some of his peers. And who knows, maybe the expression by others of thoughts already in his head will reinforce those thoughts, and lead to a different decision. I don't know. Neither do you. But there's nothing wrong with a conversation about it, right?
America, everywhere, works on self-interest, not just money. That means that regulatory agencies have a certain amount of self-interest in preserving power, which requires them to exercise that power and justify the exercise; bureaucracies have an interest in sustaining themselves and expanding their budgets, including the FDA. Whether you think it's out of self-interest, altruism, or some mixture, they take their mission seriously.
For pharmaceuticals, part of self-interest means avoiding lawsuits (the Supreme Court very recently held that neither regulatory approval, nor warning labels, bars a plaintiff from pursuing a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company), which increase in likelihood with the abuse potential of a drug.
Pharmaceutical companies also want to avoid pushing a drug through a very expensive development process and clinical trials in an attempt to gain regulatory approval, when there is a substantial likelihood the FDA will not approve, and when, even if approval is granted, the number of warnings and limitations may mean a vastly reduced market, with doctors reluctant to prescribe.
You can throw in the self-interest of politicians to cap things off. "Hey, these drugs are out there that are harming our children. We should stop children from being harmed. You're not for harming children are you? Then we need to crack down on these drugs." The pharmaceutical companies hear that, the public hears that, other politicians hear that, Congress and state legislatures hear, doctors hear that. You can imagine the net result.
Pharmaceuticals find themselves unable to produce drugs, or find it wise to drop the development of a drug, all the time. For examples of drugs dropped in particular because of concerns about abuse potential... just off the top of my head, you might try googling up some names of sleep aids that were touted as promising at one point--indipon, or something, would be an example--but that were dropped from development, allegedly, in part, because of concerns about abuse potential and the ramifications for approval, marketing, and patient use. I'm sure others on here more knowledgeable than me have other examples in mind.
