![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Phillipa on January 12, 2007, at 21:34:32
A friend just e-mailed me this link any truth in it? Or what is your impression abuse and tolerance issues? Thanks Phillipa
Posted by linkadge on January 12, 2007, at 22:15:52
In reply to Any Truth In This Article?, posted by Phillipa on January 12, 2007, at 21:34:32
Interesting.
Linkadge
Posted by Quintal on January 12, 2007, at 22:52:36
In reply to Any Truth In This Article?, posted by Phillipa on January 12, 2007, at 21:34:32
I've read theories that claim obsessions and rituals release endorphins in people with OCD (and self-harmers), that's why they do it. My guess is that when you have a powerful opiate in the body the person feels no need to perform rituals because they are feeling well, and would get little reward from the small amounts of endorphins that performing rituals normally releases. Naltrexone (an opiate blocker) reportedly has a similar effect on people who self-harm since they get no reward for their actions but leaves people unable to feel pleasure.
Q
Posted by yxibow on January 13, 2007, at 1:31:14
In reply to Any Truth In This Article?, posted by Phillipa on January 12, 2007, at 21:34:32
> A friend just e-mailed me this link any truth in it? Or what is your impression abuse and tolerance issues? Thanks Phillipa
>
>
> http://www.healthypages.net:80/news.asp?newsid=4969Its an interesting pilot study but pure morphine is dangerous stuff. Only in controlled hands -- there is a point of no return with morphine.
Posted by linkadge on January 13, 2007, at 10:09:33
In reply to Re: Any Truth In This Article? » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on January 13, 2007, at 1:31:14
But in low doses, whats the difference between morphine and say codine?
Linkadge
Posted by Quintal on January 13, 2007, at 12:26:41
In reply to Re: Any Truth In This Article? » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on January 13, 2007, at 1:31:14
>Its an interesting pilot study but pure morphine is dangerous stuff.
So is acetaminophen - more so in fact.
>Only in controlled hands -- there is a point of no return with morphine.
What do you mean? I email with two people who are 'recovered' heroin addicts (8 times more potent than morphine). There's always a way out of addiction. In any case they are referring to once weekly dosing here. It could easily be dispensed at the doctor's surgery or at a pharmacy like methadone.
Q
Posted by yxibow on January 13, 2007, at 14:39:23
In reply to Re: Any Truth In This Article? » yxibow, posted by Quintal on January 13, 2007, at 12:26:41
> >Its an interesting pilot study but pure morphine is dangerous stuff.
>
> So is acetaminophen - more so in fact.
>
> >Only in controlled hands -- there is a point of no return with morphine.
>
> What do you mean? I email with two people who are 'recovered' heroin addicts (8 times more potent than morphine). There's always a way out of addiction. In any case they are referring to once weekly dosing here. It could easily be dispensed at the doctor's surgery or at a pharmacy like methadone.That's what I meant by controlled hands.... ai..
>
> QI know, we get into synthetic opiod arguments, but I'm talking pure morphine.
Yes acetaminophen/paracetamol is a valuable drug and dangerous too and we just had someone almost die on us here so I know about that as well.
Posted by Quintal on January 13, 2007, at 15:47:33
In reply to Re: Any Truth In This Article? » Quintal, posted by yxibow on January 13, 2007, at 14:39:23
>I know, we get into synthetic opiod arguments, but I'm talking pure morphine.
Mine wasn't a synthetic opioid argument. I'm not interested in whether the opiate is synthetic, semi-synthetic or natural. Semi-synthetic Heroin would be considered more dangerous than natural morphine in terms of addictive potential and overdose by most authorities.
You seemed to be implying that the once weekly dosing of morphine as suggested by that article would be dangerous and that people risked going beyond the 'point of no return'. That doesn't seem likely or even possible if the morphine is dispensed as a single dose once a week from an authorized facility, and that's the point I was trying to address.
Q
Posted by Phillipa on January 13, 2007, at 18:43:19
In reply to Re: Any Truth In This Article? » yxibow, posted by Quintal on January 13, 2007, at 15:47:33
I think it's something that needs to be looked into as l percocet a day relieved me of depression. Not what's better living depressed on benzos or undepressed and functioning on a percocet. And I'm not that young so I wouldn't end up taking a lot in the future. Cause once I'm functioning I need neither as my self-esteem returns. So I am non medicated then. Love Phillipa
Posted by yxibow on January 15, 2007, at 1:00:28
In reply to Re: Any Truth In This Article? » yxibow, posted by Quintal on January 13, 2007, at 15:47:33
> >I know, we get into synthetic opiod arguments, but I'm talking pure morphine.
>
> Mine wasn't a synthetic opioid argument. I'm not interested in whether the opiate is synthetic, semi-synthetic or natural. Semi-synthetic Heroin would be considered more dangerous than natural morphine in terms of addictive potential and overdose by most authorities.
>
> You seemed to be implying that the once weekly dosing of morphine as suggested by that article would be dangerous and that people risked going beyond the 'point of no return'. That doesn't seem likely or even possible if the morphine is dispensed as a single dose once a week from an authorized facility, and that's the point I was trying to address.
>
> QFair enough. I really have nothing against experimental opiod therapy as a possible future treatment for depression, even antidepressants that aim at those receptors. I just don't want to see pure morphine get out of hand. But as a protocol described above, that's fine.
I just don't see the same way with a single doctor dispensing a single prescription for an opiod for their patient because pharmacies monitor these things and wonder about the off use and in turn someone can get their license yanked and that isn't terribly good for the patient without a doctor.
Controlled protocols, fine.
Its not about the substance so much as the possible repercussions that can happen and we can debate NIDA and the war on drugs till the cows come home but the user of any substance, dare a joint, is stigmatized far too much in this country and I don't see that changing alot. Some states with low use/medical use marijuana laws, I applaud.
-- tidings
Posted by Greif on January 15, 2007, at 20:39:27
In reply to Any Truth In This Article?, posted by Phillipa on January 12, 2007, at 21:34:32
Not much of an issue. You wont find any responsible doctor that will be using this therapy. Class 2 narcotic. I don't doubt the article.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.