I was skimming through a recent issue of the Journal of the
American Medical Society this morning and I came across an article analyzing
trends in prescription drug use in adults from 1999 until 2012. It initially
caught my attention because I misread the title and thought it was an analysis
of prescription drug misuse, which is something I encounter frequently as a
psychiatrist. On closer reading though, it was simply an analysis of
prescription drug use, which has increased by 8 % over the two time periods in
the analysis (from 51% of adults to 59% of adults). The prevalence of
polypharmacy (use of five or more prescription medications) increased from 8.2%
to 15.0% between the same two time periods.
The article itself was factual and neutral but I started to
get hot under the collar as I read it. Polypharmacy is considered a negative
thing in medicine. It exposes patients to more side effects and drug drug
interactions, and it’s considered dangerous. And I’ve read many news articles
about how doctors prescribe too many drugs for too many conditions, and how it’s
terrible and expensive and dangerous. At the same time, there are multiple
published standards for treating different conditions. There are specific,
numeric goals for screening and treating hypertension, diabetes and high
cholesterol, just to name a few. There are standards for screening for and
treating depression and pain; to remain accredited with certain quality
agencies you have to document that you are doing both.
The publication of specific standards for treating
conditions and the publication of critiques of polypharmacy and overutilization
of prescription medication creates a double-bind for physicians. A double bind
is a situation in which no matter which option you take, you fail. You are
given two conditions that you must meet, but they are mutually exclusive. There
is no possible way to succeed.
For example, when I was a primary care doctor, I might have
a patient come in who had hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol and
depression. Many of these illnesses run in packs, so that’s a pretty common
scenario. I evaluate the patient and talk to her about treatment. My treatment
is likely to be medication based, because even though I encourage her to
exercise regularly (which would help all of her conditions) and to change her
diet (ditto) and to reduce stress and get more sleep, my patient lets me know
that these kinds of changes just aren’t realistic for her. So I start to work
with prescriptions. Chances are, it will take two or three medications each to
control her diabetes and hypertension and one or two each to get her high
cholesterol and depression under control. Not to mention the “add-ons” like
prescribing a baby aspirin a day for certain age and risk groups that are
published as standards of care. I might succeed brilliantly in controlling her
medical problems, but I’m a failure because my patient is taking 5 or more
medications.
Double binds are incredibly bad for your psychological
health. They create pain, depression and confusion because when you are in a
double bind you are always wrong. The only way to “win” in a double bind is to
stop playing the game; to refuse one or the other of the conditions that have
been placed on you. However, double binds occur in situations in which you
can’t just leave the problem; the classic example is between a parent and a
child (the parent is the one inflicting the double bind on the child) and of
course the child can’t just leave the parent. I would suggest that after the
amount of money, time and energy most doctors spend acquiring their
professional credentials they are equally unable to leave medicine. So what’s a
poor doctor to do?
Most of us seem to muddle along focusing primarily on the
patient in front of us at the moment, the one who needs multiple medications to
get their chronic health problems under control. We keep our heads down and try
to ignore all the criticism, implicit and explicit, that we get for trying our
best to do our jobs. I notice though, that there seem to be more and more
depressed doctors around. So that strategy doesn’t seem to be working.
I don’t know if we, as doctors, can speak up for each other
and ourselves. I don’t know if we can begin naming and refusing the double
binds that are placed upon us. I’m starting to think that we need to try.