3 ms·

> Why would pain be different? It is completely different. Your analogy isn't great. A fractured ankle is a bad thing. A cast certainly won't do harm. Pain is

> Why would pain be different? It is completely different. Your analogy isn't great. A fractured ankle is a bad thing. A cast certainly won't do harm. Pain is a response of your body to a bad thing. Suppressing it can do harm in itself. Some pain can often be desirable because it prevents a patient from further injuring themselves by, for instance, putting weight on an injured ankle. Pain is a warning system. Add to that all the possible side-effects of painkillers. On top of that there's context for everything. You should probably give a patient that experiences pain which can't be avoided painkillers earlier than a patient who experiences pain when they put weight on something they shouldn't.

danShumway 6y ago
> You should probably give a patient that experiences pain which can't be avoided painkillers earlier than a patient who experiences pain when they put weight on something they shouldn't. You're describing someone with chronic pain. So... we should prioritize giving painkillers to someone with chronic pain over someone someone with temporary pain that will quickly go away if they don't do something dangerous? I agree with that. If someone has chronic pain, that pain isn't helping them avoid doing something bad to their body. It's just pointless pain with no benefit. And even if I can force myself to function with chronic pain, I can still have long-term damage from stress, lack of sleep, damage to relationships, even just damage in terms of pure suffering. It's dangerous for a doctor to say, "you can hold a conversation with me, so medication would only do you harm." I don't think that's an objective scale, and I don't think it actually captures the risks of long-term damage and suffering. If you want something with more downside than a cast, sub out something like surgery in my analogy instead. Either way, the point is that just being able to function in society is not an adequate measure by itself of whether or not someone needs medical help.

danShumway 6y ago

> You should probably give a patient that experiences pain which can't be avoided painkillers earlier than a patient who experiences pain when they put weight on something they shouldn't. You're describing someone with chronic pain. So... we should prioritize giving painkillers to someone with chronic pain over someone someone with temporary pain that will quickly go away if they don't do something dangerous? I agree with that. If someone has chronic pain, that pain isn't helping them avoid doing something bad to their body. It's just pointless pain with no benefit. And even if I can force myself to function with chronic pain, I can still have long-term damage from stress, lack of sleep, damage to relationships, even just damage in terms of pure suffering. It's dangerous for a doctor to say, "you can hold a conversation with me, so medication would only do you harm." I don't think that's an objective scale, and I don't think it actually captures the risks of long-term damage and suffering. If you want something with more downside than a cast, sub out something like surgery in my analogy instead. Either way, the point is that just being able to function in society is not an adequate measure by itself of whether or not someone needs medical help.