Talk:Self-medication

I move that this article be attached to all illicit/illegal drug and herb/vitamin supplement pages or at the very least, someone should sneak in a reference to this page with a hyperlink. (Mackleah (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC))Reply

A less blatantly biased article would point out that there are many who consider self-medication to be among the inalienable rights affirmed by the Declaration of Independence; not aberrant or criminal behavior.

This is nothing new. Benjamin Rush, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.,

believed that Americans should enshrine the right to medical freedom in their Constitution, much as the right to freedom of religion is expressly guaranteed in that document.

Rush is reported to have argued that "Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship . . . to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic ... The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom."

[from the Wikipedia article on Benjamin Rush].

Apparently the framers of the Constitution, despite Rush’s admonitions, found it inconceivable that a government would restrict freedom of choice of medicines.

I should write a parody of this article that begins

Self-nutrition is the use of foods, to treat a perceived or real hunger, often of a psychological nature.

and should be sure to emphasize in the article the distressing facts that some people actually buy and consume foods “without nutritional supervision”, or “without the advice, supervision, or even knowledge of any licensed nutritional professional”, and that the high cost of having a professional nutritionist approve one’s every choice of food “causes some individuals to desperately try to find more affordable alternatives to treat or prevent their own hunger.”

(Or is it a parody? How many states have already enacted laws against trans fats? How long will it be before a bag of greasy fries enjoys the same criminal status as a bag of cannabis?)

Of course, I could do similar parodies for self-religion, self-education, and so on. Finn (John T) 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This page is in poor shape. As the self-medication hypothesis is in the scope of my field, I'll work to improve the quality of this page in the coming weeks. Muboshgu (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article seems to imply that, for example, aspirin is usually used for "psychological" reasons
Maybe it is not really about self medication, but is about professional medical disapproval of self medication?
Laurel Bush (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have just changed the opening sentences, but maybe I should revert those changes and move the article to somewhere like "Self medication" in psychiatric opinion
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am about to try another change
Current content of Self medication seems not to be about self medication as such but about a psychiatric theory of drug abuse and addiction and causes thereof
Am I a potential psychiatric case if I use over-the-counter aspirin or paracetamol?
I tend to feel that current content of the article should be at Self medication hypothesis or, perhaps better, Psychiatric self medication hypothesis
Simply moving the article, however, would leave Self medication as an unsatisfactory redirect
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Aspirin should not be included in my view. This article should really only focus on self-medication using presription or recreational drugs outside of medical advice to treat psychological or physical symptoms. Utilisation of over the counter drugs such as aspirin is not what is meant by this article and therefore should be deleted. Self-medication is not a hypothesis but a description of a real behaviour. I think that the article should stay named self-medication.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If aspirin and paracetamol use without prescription is not self medication, then what is it?
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm good point, I guess technically it is self-medication. I was thinking that it should be excluded from this article because it is approved for saale by medical regulatory bodies for use. So as it is approved for public consumption without a prescription (i.e. over the counter drug) that it is not the same topic as this article. Am I wrong? I just don't feel that it is the same as what this article is discussing, people who self medicate with psychotropic medications or illicit drugs for pre-existing symptoms or problems.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Self medication has a broader meaning than that implied by the article originally created under that title?
The article was not originally about self medication generally, but was exclusively about self medication which is associated with disapproved drug use?
There may be a place for the article as originally focussed, but I do not think it should be under, simply, Self medication
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see no problem with breaking this article into sections about the specific sort of self medicating, and allow the term to be broadly defined as taking a substance (be it an OTC medication, prescription medication without prescription, herbal supplement, vitamin, legal drug such as alcohol, caffeine or nicotine, or an illegal street drug) through one's own volition rather than by the direction (with or without prescription) of a medical professional (i.e. doctor) for the express purpose (whether effective or not) of treating (whether or consciously aware or not) some real or perceived ailment (whether physical or psychological). Regardless of whether or not people like the comparison, it all depends on your perspective if you consider a Starbucks coffee significantly different from a little bump of cocaine to get you going in the morning. --Thoric (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Neither do I see a problem with that
I tend to read prescription, however, as meaning direction by a professional

In this case I was referring to the possible situation whereby a doctor may recommend that you take a certain vitamin or supplement for which no prescription is necessary -- i.e. your doctor is not going to give you a prescription for iron, vitamin C or a B-complex multivitamin, so in this case you'd have direction (or advisement) of a doctor to take something, but not a prescription, as the substance involved didn't require one -- thus it would not be self-medication, as it was under the direction of a physician, as opposed to choosing to take such supplements from your own research. --Thoric (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is also licence where such is required by law
This sense of meaning seems consistent with that in Medical prescription, but perhaps not quite with that in Prescription drug
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think that the name should remain self-medication, per WP:NAME. I think that Thoric's suggestion is a good idea to resolve this issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the intro would be improved by inclusion of another sentence
In the UK there are countless prescription-only drugs outside the scope of the UN conventions referenced, and I am sure this is the case in most other countries
Relevant legislation in the UK is the Medicines Act, which has much broader scope than the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) (except for MDA drugs not considered capable of medicinal use and therefore not covered by the Medicines Act)
Perhaps something like:

.... of causing addiction

Also, numerous other drugs, considered at low risk of non-medicinal use, are classed as prescription-only

[deletion]Legal use may be made of ....

Seems to me, by the way, there should be an article at Drug control law, which currently redirects to Drug prohibition law
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am fine with your suggested addition of ".... of causing addiction". I am not sure about your suggestion of prescription drugs being of low risk of non-medical use. It depends on the POM. A sedating antihistamine would be of low risk of addiction and self medication, but this is not true of benzodiazepines, opiates and CNS stimulants.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are two sets of PMOs in the UK: (1) those covered by both the Misuse of Drugs Act (representing commitments under UN conventions) and the Medicines Act and (2) those covered only by the Medicines Act
The intro needs a reference to the latter set, which seem to be drugs for which risk of self-recreational use, abuse or addiction is considered low, but which are considered, for other reasons, too dangerous to be legally available for self-medicational use
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have made a little change to the intro
Maybe 'prescription only' is now adequately covered
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your edits look fine to me Laurel. :) Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cheers Literaturegeek
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the UK, unless it is also covered by the MDA (Misuse of Drugs Act), possession of a POM for own use without a prescription seems not to be illegal. Drug Pal (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC).Reply

Is there any mention of aspirin and paracetamol in the article? Is there not legal trade in these drugs with the intention of enabling self medication? And there are numerous branded substances which are sold in the same way. Is the article really about self medication? Or somebody's disapproval self medication with substances not licensed for the purpose? Drug Pal (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC).Reply

Agree with Drug Pal above, some editors do not understand what "Self medication" is (related to relieving untreated, and/or undiagnosed, mental illness/psychological distress), and think it is about simply taking a medicine without a perscription. Woodsrock (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was bold and made the move :) Lova Falk talk 08:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reverted per here.   — C M B J   09:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I completely disagree. Taking antibiotics without prescription is not at all the same as taking cocaine because it helps in a daily life full of horrific hallucinations (as I have seen patients doing). But I won't start a war about this. Lova Falk talk 11:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I respect that perspective and certainly didn't ever intend to make light of psychoactive self-medication. The thing is, though, that we require an article on the general subject, and there's nothing to gain (and actually much to lose) from fragmenting different subtypes of self-medication before necessary due to size limitations. And to that point, for example, I was surprised to see that, even in an article this well written, the role of socioeconomic factors (e.g., tangible access to primary care) was not at all mentioned. There was also not a single word about epidemiological data, evolutionary background, or even any historical information for context. In that sense, my intent was to embrace a multidisciplinary approach because there's a far bigger picture than meets the eye. Anyways, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts at greater length, if you have the time.   — C M B J   12:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi again! When I moved the article, the first line was: "Self-medication is the use of drugs (including alcohol) or other self-soothing forms of behavior to treat untreated and often undiagnosed mental distress, stress and anxiety, including mental illnesses and/or psychological trauma". I saw your edit that was not about treating mental distress etc, and I saw there was a lot of confusion about this on the talk page, so I decided to make the move.

But maybe it is also just a matter of taste. I prefer smaller and more specific articles over broad and general ones. However, you made your case well and it's perfectly fine with me. Cheers! Lova Falk talk 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Self-medication and non-doctor prescription practices in Pokhara valley, Western Nepal: a questionnaire-based study
• Medicine Vendors: Self-medication Practices and Medicine Knowledge   — C M B J   10:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article seems to me predominantly a professional medical view of medicinal practice which is both essentially non-professional and, except within limits defined by the professionals, necessarily in conflict or rivalry with professional medicine

Thus the article seems biased in favour of the viewpoint of people who are not practicing the article's subject and will be inclined towards criticism of it, tending to see self-medication as a problem, and slow to see how professional practice might be the real problem

Laurel Bush (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply