![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by shelliR on May 9, 2001, at 18:24:11
Dr. Bob. I'm amazed that you gave a warning to:
How can you say Methadone is a nasty nasty drug when you have never been on it yourself? How closed minded. Childish.
Please don't call others names, thanks.
Boband said nothing about the following in the same thread:
I'm sorry you are so addicted to these narcotics, but please refrain from pushing them on other people. Sure... lets make a bad situation worse.
Talk about avoidance..... yah.. lets get high and not deal with the problemIt made me wonder if you are protecting people who are regulars? Because IMHO, the far worse offense was in accusing someone who was presenting a point of view, of being a pusher and analyzing her "avoidance" based on no factual information.
Are you showing a bit of a bias here?
Shelli
(just trying to keep you clean!)
Posted by JahL on May 9, 2001, at 20:24:43
In reply to Re warning on methodone thread: Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on May 9, 2001, at 18:24:11
> I'm sorry you are so addicted to these narcotics, but please refrain from pushing them on other people. Sure... lets make a bad situation worse.
> Talk about avoidance.....Right, so legitimately treating depression resistant to everything else, with opiates, amounts to avoidance. So how would you define rejecting treatment that (potentially) gives you yr life back?
>yah.. lets get high and not deal with the problem
We're back to this are we? All depression is caused by 'problems'? Don't think so. Nor does the majority of the medical profession.
Maybe you got one of those O'Conner e-mails. Let's all 'undo' our depression.With you on this one Shelli (again).
Dr.B: both the (non-explicit) 'drug-pusher' & 'junkie' accusations are are fairly serious in their nature.
Sincerely,
J.
(keeping you on yr toes)
Posted by Michele on May 10, 2001, at 1:04:26
In reply to Re warning on methodone thread: Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on May 9, 2001, at 18:24:11
First off, I apologize for offending you.. but my post was also not directed at you. Someone actually said... yes, I really think you should try it. I think people shoud refrain from stuff like that. I was very addicted to methadone.. and it's nothing, nothing, nothing to fool around with. That post just utterly shocked me... and I guess I spoke too soon. Dr. Bob.. I apologize. And to whoever else feels they need my aplogy. But it is a Schedule 11 drug and reuined more than one of the lives of people I was close to..it's dangerous! No one has to take my opinion to heart, nor refrain from taking methadone. Maybe god bless you if you do... but I understand you have to find out for yourself. Good luck. And again..... sorry. P.s. I also haven't been around here very long... so I don't believe Dr. Bob is showing any biases... I also don't think that Dr. Bob would agree in suggesting methadone use... but then again, I don't know. Doctors still tend to suprise me. I printed out a few posts and showed my father.. who is a very well respected Doctor... and he was just baffled at the thought of this being taken for depression.
Posted by shelliR on May 10, 2001, at 8:26:18
In reply to Re: Re warning on methodone thread-shelly, posted by Michele on May 10, 2001, at 1:04:26
Michele. Just because a post is not directed toward me, does not make it less offensive. I was objecting to the accusations you made in your post, not your opinion. If you had stuck to your own opinions and experiences, fine, but to declare that someone was not avoiding her problems is making an assumption that you cannot possibly make--not knowing the circumstances.And if you're going to apologize, perhaps you could leave out the "but"s. It reads to me like a defense, not an apology.
On the other hand, I can understand if you've been addicted to methodone that you would have strong opinions about it and reading a post supporting it could be upsetting to you. But remember the point of this board is to let everyone express their opinions, without being personally attacked.
Shelli
Posted by Michele on May 10, 2001, at 14:27:02
In reply to Re: Re warning on methodone thread-shelly » Michele, posted by shelliR on May 10, 2001, at 8:26:18
>
> I was so not personally attacking anybody... exept for maybe saying people should not suggest that drug to anybody. Where was I attacking? You sound awful defensive. And as to you comments about my apology not coming across as an apology.... I guess that's because it really wasn't. I'm done with this subject. I don't come on this board to rile up, or be riled. I come for support.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 12, 2001, at 0:42:23
In reply to Re warning on methodone thread: Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on May 9, 2001, at 18:24:11
> > I'm sorry you are so addicted to these narcotics, but please refrain from pushing them on other people. Sure... lets make a bad situation worse.
> > Talk about avoidance..... yah.. lets get high and not deal with the problem
>
> the far worse offense was in accusing someone who was presenting a point of view, of being a pusher and analyzing her "avoidance" based on no factual information."Pusher" has different connotations that I don't think apply here. But I agree, it would've been better to avoid the "avoidance" comment, but I guess I didn't think it crossed the line.
> Are you showing a bit of a bias here?
Not here, I don't think. But those who contribute more may be treated more leniently, and those who contribute less, more strictly.
Bob
Posted by Elizabeth on May 16, 2001, at 17:52:49
In reply to Re: Re warning on methodone thread, posted by Dr. Bob on May 12, 2001, at 0:42:23
> > the far worse offense was in accusing someone who was presenting a point of view, of being a pusher and analyzing her "avoidance" based on no factual information.
>
> "Pusher" has different connotations that I don't think apply here.I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? When someone calls someone else a "pusher" in this context, it sounds to me like they're calling that person a drug dealer. *Maybe* it didn't occur to the person who said it that that's how it sounds. *Maybe* the person just meant they thought that someone else was "pushing" a particular treatment on another person. But I think those are really big "maybes."
> But I agree, it would've been better to avoid the "avoidance" comment, but I guess I didn't think it crossed the line.
It sounds like amateur psychoanalysis to me. < g >
Seriously, I think a major issue in psychiatry is the use of putatively "objective" diagnoses to convey subjective feelings of dislike or insults. (Defense mechanisms could be considered a psychoanalytic type of "diagnosis.") A few examples of things that mental health professionals do (and amateurs follow suit):
* saying that a kid has "oppositional defiant disorder" (meaning he's a pain in the *ss)
* or that an adult has a "personality disorder" (connoting that he or she is frustrating and/or that s/he is to be blamed for his/her failure to respond to treatment)
* or that a drug addict has "antisocial personality disorder" (because he had to commit crimes in order to obtain drugs illegally)
* or that a woman has "PMS" (meaning that the speaker thinks that she's a b*tch)
> > Are you showing a bit of a bias here?
>
> Not here, I don't think. But those who contribute more may be treated more leniently, and those who contribute less, more strictly.In theory I sort of disagree with this, but in practise, new or unknown people are more likely to be troublemakers or trolls. So I guess I can understand the reasoning behind keeping a closer watch and a tighter leash on newcomers, even though the idea bothers me.
-elizabeth
Posted by JahL on May 16, 2001, at 21:42:02
In reply to Re: Re warning on methodone thread, posted by Elizabeth on May 16, 2001, at 17:52:49
> > But I agree, it would've been better to avoid the "avoidance" comment, but I guess I didn't think it crossed the line.
>
> It sounds like amateur psychoanalysis to me. < g >Kind of what I was suggesting above!
> Seriously, I think a major issue in psychiatry is the use of putatively "objective" diagnoses to convey subjective feelings of dislike or insults. A few examples:
> * or that an adult has a "personality disorder" (connoting that he or she is frustrating and/or that s/he is to be blamed for his/her failure to respond to treatment)BOY can I relate to this.
In the UK diagnosing personality disorders is a favoured strategy of inept & under-educated pdocs to explain their failure to treat.After I'd failed SSRIs, Tricyclics & (pretty laughable) psychotherapy I was handed a 'personality disorder' questionaire. Fool-proof apparently. Probably only for people with personality disorders ;-). Essentially you could construct whatever personality took yr fancy. Handed the silly thing back.
The week before this pdoc (who was charging $275 an hr) had told me "you're the most rational person I've ever met". Go figure!
Jah.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2001, at 22:20:41
In reply to Re: Re warning on methodone thread, posted by Elizabeth on May 16, 2001, at 17:52:49
> > > the far worse offense was in accusing someone who was presenting a point of view, of being a pusher...
> >
> > "Pusher" has different connotations that I don't think apply here.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? When someone calls someone else a "pusher" in this context, it sounds to me like they're calling that person a drug dealer.Right, that's the kind of connotation I meant. But the original comment was:
> > > > I'm sorry you are so addicted to these narcotics, but please refrain from pushing them on other people.
Which I thought referred to being a more benign kind of "pusher"...
Bob
Posted by AndrewB on June 13, 2001, at 9:47:03
In reply to Re: Re warning on methodone thread, posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2001, at 22:20:41
Dr. Bob,
I have been informed that you have blocked DianeD from posting. I am writing this in hopes you will review your stance of blocking her. I have conversed with her through e-mail for over a year and have aays known her to be kind and supportive. I haven't read the paticular passage that led to her being blocked but I know that she was responding to people who were dubious of her stance that methadone can be safe and effective for depression in certain limited cases. As I recall, she received some rather stern rebukes to this stance. Perhaps in responding to these stern rebukes it was hard not to sound supportive at the same time. I am hoping you will review whether she was 'fanning the fire' or merely reponding the best she could with evidence in support of the limited use of methadone as an AD. I know you probably would rather not have to be put in the position of deciding who can and connot participate on the site, but your willingness to do this is what makes this site special. In Diane's case however, I believe a review of what was actually said is warrented. Thank you for your efforts and guidance.
On an unrelated note, a nonprofit site (I believe) addressed www.drugbuyers.com regularly negotiates discounts from mail order pharmacies for customers that order from the links on their site. This makes me think that mail order pharmacies would be willing to pay your site to have a link with it. The fee your site could charge may be highest if based on sales volume created for the pharmacy. I don't know what software could be used to verify the actual sales voume created though.
AndrewB
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2001, at 11:50:57
In reply to Re: Blocking of DianeD, posted by AndrewB on June 13, 2001, at 9:47:03
> I have been informed that you have blocked DianeD from posting. I am writing this in hopes you will review your stance of blocking her.
I reconsidered once, then something else happened, and I rereconsidered. If she'd still like to be unblocked, she should email me.
> On an unrelated note...
I think I'll start a new thread with this...
Bob
Posted by kiddo on June 16, 2001, at 23:16:51
In reply to Re: Re warning on methodone thread, posted by Dr. Bob on May 12, 2001, at 0:42:23
> Not here, I don't think. But those who contribute more may be treated more leniently, and those who contribute less, more strictly.
>
> BobI'm just curious why a 'newbie' would be treated more strict than lenient.... I mean, wouldn't you expect more from someone who's been around for awhile, knows the rules, and what kind of things that make you block people?
Please (I'd make that bold if I knew how) don't take that as I'm trying to cause trouble or stir things up, but I really don't understand....
I've read the FAQ on civility and to me it doesn't seem that specific.
Kiddo
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2001, at 9:57:00
In reply to Confused about civility.... » Dr. Bob, posted by kiddo on June 16, 2001, at 23:16:51
> > those who contribute more may be treated more leniently, and those who contribute less, more strictly.
>
> I'm just curious why a 'newbie' would be treated more strict than lenient.... I mean, wouldn't you expect more from someone who's been around for awhile, knows the rules, and what kind of things that make you block people?That's an interesting way to look at it... I guess what it comes down to is that what's better for the community is a higher priority than what's more "fair" for individuals. Or at least that's been my philosophy so far...
Bob
Posted by kiddo on June 17, 2001, at 15:10:41
In reply to Re: Confused about civility...., posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2001, at 9:57:00
> That's an interesting way to look at it... I guess what it comes down to is that what's better for the community is a higher priority than what's more "fair" for individuals. Or at least that's been my philosophy so far...
>
> BobK, was just curious on your viewpoint..thanks
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.