Why do associates pinch drugs that enjoy side affects that are worse than the problem they are trying to solve?
Answer:
Well it depends on the side effects and the ailment being treated.
Would you want to be eplieptic? Personally I would business deal with the side effects.
I hold seasonal allergies. I'd rather be for a moment tired and have a dry mouth than be surrounded by total discomfort from the hypersensitivity.
Give me an example of the side effects of a medication are worse than the condition. I mean look at Chemotherapy...you're simply poisoning your body. But would you rather be contained by constant pain lone to die a very horrible demise?
They enjoy the initial "high", but as we adjectives know this fades suddenly and is harder to achieve over time. But, some will never administer up trying to attain that feeling again.
They listen to their doctors.
Sounds similar to desperation, doesn't it?
If they weigh the side-effects, and their ailment seems 10x worse, after I guess they hope for the best, risk it, and take the meds.
That's what make me wonder if it's almost better to live with the syndrome? It makes me believe that the drug companies are utilizing chemicals or technique that are contra-natural and that is why the body shows up near these side-effects. To me, a side-effect is your body's way of clich¨¦ "this is wrong; don't take!".
I can`t bear the statistics that they provide of showing x-amount of people will hold side effects, x-amount will not be helped through the med and other disclaimers. It is probably impossible to own a med be 100% perfect for everyone, but when a side-effect is strongly repeated surrounded by tests, that tell me that the medication is not READY or INCOMPLETE in design, and the drug company wants to do further research and studys.
How many times have the FDA approved a drug, only to enjoy it recalled months or years subsequently? Who dropped the ball? Did the drug company fudge near the numbers? Did the FDA push it before it be ready? Is the FDA corrupted to some scope? Are the chemical companies/drug manufacturers contained by ca-hoots with the FDA or other agencies?
Like you said, some side-effects are almost more insecure than the "cure". How in the world can some items build it to the market, when it's almost resembling taking one poison to combat another? The "cure" should not do any destruction.
What happened to the dated adage "first do no harm"???
062707 3:56
I have wondered this myself. I deduce it is mainly because doctors enjoy been lift too high surrounded by our minds as to thinking they can heal adjectives when all along for the most cut all they do is hold out suppressive therapies that masquerade the symptoms with drugs fairly than heal. Another aim people do this is because they want a express fix.
When I tell family I go to a naturopath I repeatedly get that I should be in motion to a real doctor too. A naturopath have the same schooling as any MD except they don't do surgery unless they go for further schooling. They have schooling surrounded by nature ways, I don't see why population see that as bad when it have helped when regular prescription has poor. A naturopath often does a virtuous job at finding the source of a robustness problem so it can be dealt near.
People instead take tender shots for allergies when there is a safer and painless passageway of doing it by way of muscle carrying out tests. They take strong mind altering drugs that may devolution the brain forever when they can use more natural approaches to promise with and possibly heal the problem to be precise the source.
My Naturopath treats with homeopathic remedies, flower essences, Muscle trialling, Bowen Therapy, herb tintures, nosodes, and many other modes of therapeutic.
Kim Y, thanks next to what you said that is so true.
Diane
ALL medical treatments enjoy be looked at from a risk-benefit standpoint. If the risks or side effects are truly worse than the disease, then the drug should not be used.
Too various patients want a "quick fix" - they'd to some extent pop a pill than lose weight or quit smoking.
(BTW it's side EFFECTS, not AFFECTS. )
Amen to Pangolin. I spend a roomy part of my hours of daylight recommending that my patients NOT bear drugs that they often constraint. There's an expectation in our society that there's a pill for everything, and most of the time the risk-to-benefit ratio is hardly there or on the wrong side, but empire don't want to hear that, especially when they're bombarded with promotion that tells them differently.
Lets be clear here....the side effects, surrounded by general, are NOT worse than te disease,,,to be exact utterly false and subjective. (in the mind of the questioner)...
side effects are just that,,,side effects, that are solved properly, when the tolerant has proper comunication next to his/her doctor...
Worse than the problem? which problem?? cancer?...AIDS??
A recent evaluation of 3 years duration in western Europe, showed, that several drugs prescribed, either be used in toxic doses by SOME merciful themselves, pursuing "inmediate results", or the prescribed amount was NOT followed by the merciful, taking the dose that they believed were suitable for their ailments......(higher doses, quicker and better effect, or so they thought)
If that be the case, not a soul would consult a doctor...
Ignorance perhaps? a BIG factor..
Are you referring to chemotherapy? wrong again...the benefits of proper chemotherapy, contained by the long term, are far superior for survival, than those false "envenomations" that the oncologist prescribe...(laymans words).....
Side effects can be expected from almost ANY drug...and even so...abundant patients find that aspirin cause to them "big stomach pains" and talk to their doctors on the phone, whilst they are snorting a flawless dose of cocaine, or smoking a nice good "reefer" of marijuana....
Where are we standing next? shall we stop prescribing?
I am being a bit rude here , but if you have a feeling that remedies are worse than diseases....dont take the remedies...assured as that..... just DONT...and problem solved......