Do benzos deserve the bad reputation they get?

mr_fegelien

I'm not a medical professional but have read a bit about these drugs and have relatives/friends who have been taking them for some time.

The general consensus among doctors is that benzos are probably a "no-go" for anxiety or any other mental condition and should only be prescribed for limited reasons and for a short term. Some say that it's even worse than prescribing opiates due to the horrendous withdrawals that can arise.

I must say that Ireland/UK has a conservative approach to benzo prescribing (AFAIK, the NHS has blacklisted Xanax). I have relatives who live in the States and one of them has been getting 30 tablets of 2mg diazepam every months for the last 6 months. She's gotten off them and not experiencing any withdrawal. The doctor has suggested she try SSRI's before going long-term on benzos.

It seems that physicians there are much more liberal in their approach and I'm sure my aunt is not the only one. If millions are prescribed them over the Atlantic and can take these medicines without much major consequence, then why the reluctance here? How many patients experience the awful withdrawal symptoms compared to those who experience mild to no symptoms?

My agreement with the doctors here partially arises when I see Jordan Peterson and the hell he's been going through. He was legally prescribed and took as advised clonazepam to deal with his wife's cancer but later had to go to a treatment facility in Russia to put him in a coma to ease the withdrawals. Again though, maybe people like him are the minority.

Another reason why I'd be in favor of them is because I know friends here who were initially prescribed them for short term but when they went back to their doctor, they were denied. All of them have simply gotten benzos from the black-market so does not prescribing really help them? One could argue that an addict will get them anyway and it's better to get pharmaceutical grade stuff that's safe in purity than risk self-medicating with street drugs.

Would like to here your opinions on this.

Malmedicine

mr_fegelien wrote: »

The general consensus among doctors is that benzos are probably a "no-go" for anxiety or any other mental condition and should only be prescribed for limited reasons and for a short term. Some say that it's even worse than prescribing opiates due to the horrendous withdrawals that can arise.

Another reason why I'd be in favor of them is because I know friends here who were initially prescribed them for short term but when they went back to their doctor, they were denied. All of them have simply gotten benzos from the black-market so does not prescribing really help them? One could argue that an addict will get them anyway and it's better to get pharmaceutical grade stuff that's safe in purity than risk self-medicating with street drugs.

They are a no go for anxiety (in the vast vast majority of patients) - they have short term benefit and long term side effects (withdrawl , addiction and increased tolerance being 3).

One could argue that facilitating addiction isn't really what prescriptions should be used for at all.

The time, energy and sacrifice put into dealing with the fall out from these drugs is MASSIVE.

Its the secret shame of gp's that we still prescribe them in the numbers we do. Gp's physically, verbally abused over their prescribing decisions with relation to these drugs.

RobFowl

They absolutely deserve the bad rep.
Horrible drugs except for limited short term use.
The addiction risk is very substantial.

mr_fegelien

RobFowl wrote: »

They absolutely deserve the bad rep.
Horrible drugs except for limited short term use.
The addiction risk is very substantial.

In what sense are they horrible?

I'm surprised. How did patients cope when they were first released to the market in the 1960s and touted as miracle drugs? How come it took until the 2000s for the medical community to change it's opinion on them?

What I can say though is that when it comes to recreational drug use, I've read and know anecdotal stories that people who use pills compared to alcohol/weed almost always tend to go down a slippery slope very quickly in regards to addiction, legal problems, stealing, etc...

Breezer

RobFowl wrote: »

They absolutely deserve the bad rep.
Horrible drugs except for limited short term use.
The addiction risk is very substantial.

I’m going to slightly disagree and say that in certain circumstances, for certain people, they work wonders. Now I’m talking about extreme social circumstances only, when other options have failed, with frequent reviews and due diligence on the part of the GP/psychiatrist not to let increasing the dosage become the go to option when adverse circumstances rear their head again.

I have seen people do very well on a low, stable dose, for years.

Having said that, this needs to be done on a select basis, by a doctor who knows the patient well. There are a lot of people on BZDs to whom this does not apply and they have the potential to destroy lives, very quickly.

I think if a patient experiencing anxiety and it's a recent affliction asks for them they might help to get over a rough patch.

But some doctors might just give out some rubbish that might as well be smarties.

Nothing is done to curb the anxiety and then it becomes more deep rooted so when he eventually gets his d5s/10s his condition
remains an ongoing one.

Also, I think they have to villify the likes of benzos methinks in order to help to validate all the other pills which may not be as addictive
or prone to getting dependent on but still mess with the brain's chemistry and organs.

The pharmaceutical system is a joke.