6 ms·
I wonder how many of these are absolute benefits but not strictly needed to survive. For example, allergy meds greatly improve my life on an ongoing basis, but
by zdw 3y ago
I wonder how many of these are absolute benefits but not strictly needed to survive.
For example, allergy meds greatly improve my life on an ongoing basis, but I could do without them if I was willing to have messy sinuses and a headache on and off for a good part of the year. I was using over-the-counter meds but those stopped working and prescription ones do seem to work as replacements.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the voluntary prescriptions have benefits that far outweigh their downsides.
- tomtheelder 3y agoNearly all prescription medications have benefits that far outweigh their downsides, at least at a population level. I do understand to some degree the growing skepticism around prescription medications, especially because of some high profile over-prescription events, but the gains achieved in quality of life and longevity due to prescription medications are huge. Put another way: I'm quite sure that the _overwhelming_ majority of prescription medications are a net benefit to the patient. This stat is in no way a bad thing.
- tmnvix 3y ago> This stat is in no way a bad thing. It could indicate a lack of preventative measures or excessively unhealthy lifestyles.
- UncleMeat 3y agoOr a vast improvement in medical technology enabling new treatments for previously untreatable issues.
- tmnvix 3y agoAlmost certainly both. The prevalence of prescription contraceptives would support your conjecture, while that of diabetes medications would support mine. I do find the statistic intuitively astounding given what I know of friends and family. Unless elderly or on the pill, use of prescription medications seems low. I am not in the US though.
- alex_lav 3y agoI think it's just kind of a lot to think about. Glass half full: medication improves quality of life. Glass half empty: Quality of life is dropping such that more prescription medication is necessary to maintain an average quality of life.
- natdempk 3y agoWe are living longer partially as a result of treating issues that would previously have gone untreated or poorly treated. Most things we treat with medication we treat because they have negative health outcomes otherwise like earlier deaths. Longer lifespan on medication = more percentage of life on medication, but of course people would typically rather have that than a shorter un-medicated life. I think there probably is a factor of quality of life dropping due to things like obesity raising in prevalence, but I think what I stated above could be the more likely/common explanation that doesn't require the "glass half empty" view. One other factor is we are able to treat more things each year than ever before. There are numerous diseases that have gone from death sentence to a mostly normal life with the help of medication. This would also influence the percentage statistic.
- alex_lav 3y agoI guess to me if you’re attributing a nontrivial portion of the rise in medication use to things like diabetes and obesity, you are agreeing that it is indeed a negative root cause for our society.
- modeless 3y agoAllergy shots work. You can be free from medication.
- paulcole 3y agoAh yes, the non-medical allergy shots. Why didn’t I think of that?!
- modeless 3y agoThe freedom from medication happens after the course of shots is over, wise guy. And even during the treatment for several weeks in between each monthly shot, unlike other allergy medications taken daily.
- vidanay 3y agoAllergy shots are medication. I think they need to be renewed every few years.
- bondarchuk 3y agoAnd even if they did not need to be renewed they would still be medication...
- modeless 3y agoThe freedom from medication happens after the course of shots is over, and lasts for many years, in many cases for life. The shots are simply extracts of the things you are allergic to in extremely small amounts, which, sure, you can classify as medication although I think most people would draw a distinction between that and something like diphenhydramine or fluticasone. After the first few months the shots are taken only once per month and typically do not have any side effects, very unlike antihistamines or other daily allergy medications. (In the first few months only while updosing the side effects are typically local itchiness akin to an insect bite).
- s1artibartfast 3y agoAllergy shots are a pretty good example when discussing continuous medication. They have been shown to have durable long term effects once you go off of them are close to the efficacy of continuing treatment. You can take allergy shots for for your entire life and the current recommendation is monthly. Or you can stop after 2-3 years and get ~80% of the benefit for the rest of your life.
- MattGaiser 3y agoI am on asthma meds. I don't need them to live, but I did like to breathe when I was younger. Ozempic is offering people painless weight loss that actually works. ADHD meds aren't needed either, but do improve concentration.
- r2_pilot 3y ago> Ozempic is offering people painless weight loss that actually works. The medicine may work, unlike those stomachs which experience gastroparesis upon taking it as a side effect. I'm not so sure I'd describe some of that as painless, though.
- samatman 3y agoSide effects are on the order of 0.1% of people taking Ozempic. So it's clearly offering a lot of people painless weight loss that actually works, not everyone but the vast majority.
- tuccinator 3y agoI only know 2 people taking Ozempic and while it is working great for their weight, their quality of life is affected. It removes the want to eat so you almost have to force yourself to eat to get the bare minimum calories. Drinks they have been consuming almost daily for their entire life needed to be cut out (coffee and tea) due to nausea. The doctors just keep increasing the dosage making them feel even more depressed. Not to mention studies show that when they stop taking it they could see their weight go back to pre-Ozempic levels.
- ivraatiems 3y agoI think you're going to find that a lot of these are actually drugs like statins and metformin, which _are_ "strictly needed to survive" in the sense that the main thing they're doing is preventing early death. People hear "prescription modifications" and think of things like SSRIs, allergy meds, opioids, etc., but the vast majority of the top 10 medications taken in the US[0] are statins, diabetes drugs, blood pressure medications - things which prolong life. [0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/most-common-medications#top-10 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/most-common-medica...
- fragmede 3y agoThis is especially apparent when you look at the graph in the paper for what percentage of people are taking medication by age. I'm curious about the drop off at 85+ though. https://read.dukeupress.edu/view-large/figure/8349863/dem10965990figure1.tif https://read.dukeupress.edu/view-large/figure/8349863/dem109...
- lepus 3y agoIf you're healthy enough to live past 85 you're more likely to have lifestyle and inherited factors that increase the odds of you being able to need fewer or no medications even into old age. Modern medicine helps counteract poor health but only so much.
- littlestymaar 3y agoI'm a bit skeptical about that, because at some point, the older you get the poorer your health become even if it used to be stellar. I'm lucky enough to come from a family with very good health expectancy (all 4 great grandmother lived past 90, and all my 4 grandparents are on track to be there as well), but beyond a certain age in their 80 they all started to take meds even though they were still in very good shape.
- 4death4 3y agoProbably diabetics or those at high risk of cardiovascular disease dying.