My point is that the doctor said she she not only needed a week's worth of vicodin to manage the pain for recovery, but she'd likely need more.
Yet she really only needed zero vicodin. Just like the person in the NYTimes article.
But thanks for your illuminating anecdote of someone who had some procedure and ignored some medical advice and took something else than the something that was prescribed.
Well no, I think her doctor is basing his/her advice on what he typically does, and what patients expect (see the original NYTimes article where the author was adamant that she needed stronger painkillers, but turns out she didn't).
The dangers of opioids are well known, and it turns out that the evidence for opioids being the best option to be routinely diagnosed is shaky. From the article I linked to:
The authors of the new trial, led by Andrew Chang of Albany Medical College in New York, note that common medical practice and guidelines, including those championed by the World Health Organization, suggest that opioids are simply more effective at treating acute pain than non-opioid medications—or combinations of them. Yet, the data backing that is shaky.
So maybe, more discretion on when and how many opioids are prescribed would be better for everyone.
Yet she really only needed zero vicodin. Just like the person in the NYTimes article.
But thanks for your illuminating anecdote of someone who had some procedure and ignored some medical advice and took something else than the something that was prescribed.