Physician Drug Abuse - where is the grey line?


We had a great lecture yesterday about impaired physicians that abuse recreational drugs like alcohol, prescription painkillers, cocaine, etc. It was a pretty black and white conversation - doctors shouldn't be under the influence while practicing medicine. But the gray area grows when we get to other forms of drug abuse - what about people who use drugs as a supplement? Is it wrong for a med student to Adderall to study late into the night?

--

Let me go on a 3 part sports sidenote - 

1) Lance Armstrong recently came out on Oprah to admit his doping status. What he did might have been cheating, but was it wrong?  Everyone else in the Tour was doing it. (New Yorker article about what Lance did wrong)

guilty until proven innocent
2) Baseball Hall of Fame voting came out this past week and ZERO people were enshrined this year because of steroid accusations.  This included players like Mike Piazza who were great home run hitters during the steroid era, but never tested positive for steroids.  First of all, is it fair to assume these guys are guilty by association? Second of all, is it our place to stop these guys from their pursuit of greatness?  If they understand the consequences of steroids, should we stop them from bulking up, getting big time contracts, and trying to become the best baseball player that they can be?

3) Take endurance running.  One form of training is running in the mountains where there's less oxygen.  By training at altitude you train your body to produce more red blood cells, which carry more oxygen, and make your running more efficient. You have to work harder at altitude - but you get more result out of it.  Nobody would call this extra advantage cheating.

Technology has figured out how to mimic this effect with altitude tents where you can sleep in a low oxygen environment.  Whether you sleep in a low oxygen tent or you train up in Wyoming, the way your body makes more red blood cells is by producing more of a molecule called EPO.  Should sleeping in these tents be allowed?

Endurance athletes have also learned that you can inject yourself with a synthetic EPO solution to induce this RBC producing effect. Injecting EPO isn't allowed, but altitude tents are, even though neither of them require any extra work.

--

Anyways, back to medicine: On an average day I have green tea in the morning. In the afternoon I have coffee around 12 or 1 PM to avoid the post-lunch coma. If I go past 2 PM without that delicious coffee, I'm hitting a wall and getting pissed off. Once I get that caffeine influx, I'm in a great mood and it's easily the most productive hour of my day.  


So if I can drink coffee to help me study, is it wrong to use ADD medication as a studying crutch?  Nobody has ever offered me Ritalin or Adderall, but if someone offered it to me.. what would I say?  Honestly.. I might consider it.  I could study more in less time. I could have more time and energy left to be a good husband. Not to mention I would be learning medicine better, and I would become a better doctor, so I would be saving lives, right?  

What if I thought I could get diagnosed with ADD and pick up some prescription fully legal Adderall?  

What if a surgeon decided to self-medicate to be especially focused for a tough case at the end of a long night?  What if he was doing heart surgery on your kid? 

..where do we draw the grey line?

See you on the other side,

from ken

taking requests for future blog posts. please comment or email.

9 comments:

  1. I have heard people say that american soldiers take stimulants (government funded i am sure) to keep them awake and attentive while in combat or on duty. So, if that is true where does the line get drawn for soldiers in the field and doctors at home? Both are supposed to be saving american lives.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/why-are-we-drugging-our-soldiers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soldiers taking stimulants is a perfect example. What if we could get government funded stimulants..?

      Delete
  2. Very interesting topic....In reguards to athleates taking performance enhancing drugs. My main problem with it is that many of these steriods and blood boosters have side effects that are harmful to the body and increase the risk of mortality. What does this say to kids who dream to become baseball, cycling, running stars? To me it suggest that you can't be an elite athlete without compromising your health....training at altitude and sleeping in altitude simulating tents do not come with serious health risk that I know of.

    I don't know enough about the risk of taking stimulants to comment there. I'm sure there are side effects and possibly depedancy issues...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kaleb - glad you commented since we probably have similar knowledge bases. What about the idea of high schoolers running 80+ mile weeks? Gives them a competitive edge, possibly, but it could stunt growth and damage their long term potential? If nothing else this post has motivated to learn something about pharmacology.

      Delete
  3. yes, i agree with you on both fronts....high schoolers should not be running 80 miles a week and this is a good reason to learn pharmacology.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great post, raises a lot of good questions. What is the difference between caffeine and an amphetamine, what is considered an acceptable drug? Why is there not a problem with someone chugging coffee to get that edge, but there is when someone is taking an amphetamine for the same purpose? Who and in what situations should someone be allowed to use a stimulant? I think this gets into the mixture of just achieving peak human performance on all levels, be it students, doctors, or athletes, but at what cost? Why even the need to take stimulants at all? Is there such a dire need for students in general to cram as much information into there brains as quickly as possible? Wouldn't adjusting the learning pace to each individuals personal limit achieve this without the pressure to take stimulants? Instead of peak performance on general human level, why not on a peak performance on a personal level? Lastly, where does the drug stop and the human begin? Is Barry Bonds really that great of a ball player, or was it just the drugs? Is it really peak human performance, or is it peak drug performance? If you take the stimulants away do the students, do those who choose to take stimulants suddenly dip in there knowledge capacity? or is it just a reduction on the rate of knowledge intake? No need to answer the questions, just trying to push the brain juices in different directions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are all good questions. The question I would ask back to the Barry Bonds note is: why are certain methods of improving performance acceptable (lifting weights, eating a healthy diet, taking an ice bath) but some are not (taking HGH)?

      Delete
  5. For me the obvious difference between most of the dichotomies you present is doing things to your body vs. putting things in your body.

    Injecting EPO vs. training in Wyoming vs. altitude tents may have the same ends, but very different means. Similarly, HGH vs. weight training vs. ice bath. But I agree, the further you go into the grey area, aka publicly available stimulants, the slippier the slope is. Nobody bats an eyelash when someone chugs a Red Bull to study for a few more hours, but taking unprescribed adderall is frowned upon.

    I think I agree with Tom's sentiment - that it's all about whether the ends justify the means personally for you. This gets much murkier when you talk about professional athletes who make decisions that affect more than just themselves, but their sports, their fans, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah it definitely gets murkiest when the decisions aren't just about someone's personal performance. I feel like it should be legitimate for individuals to be sacrificed for the whole, but that feels it could get real controversial real fast.

      Delete