Hi docs and doc adjacent folks, I am looking for your honest opinions on how pts with a history of AUD are treated differently due to such history on their medical record.
I have read quite a few stories in the past of people being denied certain medications or given extremely reduced doses of relief medications because of a history of addiction (regardless of substance). Furthermore, lack of compassionate care, but that is dependent on each doctor’s point of view really.
There is also the factor of less liability coverage when it comes to health insurance, I assume. (Though I am Canada based, I do have extended coverage)
To be clear, I am not a person in any way interested in benzos or the such and fully believe those should be a tightly controlled substance 100%. BUT I do worry that if I were to ever get in a car accident or need major surgery, that the doctor would greatly reduce pain relieving measures/doses due to AUD history.
Maybe it’s a silly point to make, but I don’t want to be discriminated against, for lack of a better word, at any point in my medical care over the course of my life. I don’t want something that is an issue now(AUD), to negatively impact my care in say 2, 10 or 20 years from now.
I’m sure there is a liability factor from a doctors point of view, but if an issue of AUD was a one time stint, is it factored in heavily?
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét