I'm trying to get into a clinical trial for a new chronic-pain drug. You'd think I was competing for a seat on the Virgin Galactic space shuttle.
After nearly five years of pushing through excruciating pain with epidurals, pain meds, hot baths, lumbar traction machines, physical therapy and sheer mental will, I finally succumbed last February to a spinal fusion surgery. I knew it would be bad; I didn't expect it to make childbirth seem like acid reflux.
The surgery was a success. But the surgeon's worst fear came true. The titanium cage (an internal cast with four screws) caused more pain due to my weight having plummeted to 80 pounds from the side effects of enough morphine to flatten an elephant.
Each appointment at the pain management clinic was an exercise in humiliation, being drug-tested and interrogated, yet another indignity people in chronic pain endure.
Which used to enrage me. Why would any doctor put someone in verifiable pain, with no history of substance abuse, through more suffering?
There is a raging debate among medical providers over the pros and cons of prescribing opioids: The frightening rise of overdose. The risk of addiction. Previously law-abiding citizens taking to the streets in search of anything to relieve the intractable pain that makes each day a struggle to survive.
Unfortunately, it turns out that less than 30 percent of patients are compliant with their doctors' orders, justifying the medical community's fear.
What isn't justified is treating people in chronic pain like junkies. There's a distinction between drug addiction and chemical dependence. The first describes using recreational drugs to get high; the other describes the inevitable tolerance that builds up, requiring escalating dosages to get the same relief.