I think I'm beginning to understand the nature of the problem between me and my doctors. I think the problem is that, generally, doctors don't understand that there is a difference between substance/drug addiction and substance/drug abuse. The difference is that one is harmful while the other is benign, or even beneficial.
If a doctor was 100% certain that you'd become addicted to a particular medication that he was giving you, do you think that he'd have any objection to giving it to you? Don't you think that he'd want to do whatever he could to bring you into none addicted state of being? Of course he would. But that's the problem. There is nothing wrong with being addicted to something merely because you're addicted to it. It's only bad if there are negative repercussions. Some doctors think that just because there is a ceiling to how much of a particular narcotic you can be on that eventually you'd have to stop, that you shouldn't take the drug. Here is the problem with that idea; during the period in which you were becoming addicted to it you were doing well being on the drug in that you were reaping its positice benefits. That could be many man years. So you could have many years of healthy living because of that drug whereas without it you'd be miserable otherwise.
Doctors don't seem able to graps that. Anybody disagree with this analysis? If so then please explain why you disagree. I'm quite interested to know. Thanks.