On catch up, I'm watching a programme called Britains deadliest addictions. Its not quite as sensationalist as it sounds but is still a slightly strange programme. They are following 3 addicts through rehab and discussing some of the issues with these addictions. Its presented by Krishnan Guru Murphy. I'm not sure if its been on TV recently or a while ago.
One is addicted to alcohol, one to crack cocaine and one to benzodiazepine (tranquilizers) which she has been addicted to for 30 years and she is legally prescribed. She is housebound due to her anxiety and does not get these tablets from any other source.
I can see how awfully difficult the future will be for the first two addicts but I'm a bit confused by her- which is not to say I see her illness as any less serious.
She has been prescribed these tablets all her life. They used to be regularly prescribed for depression and stress but its now recognised they should only be used short term. I can see how she could have 30 years of addiction behind her- she could have manipulated her doctors, or changed them frequently, or maybe its recognised that such addicts need to continue to to be prescribed her tablets until they can go through something like rehab?
But considering she knows she has a problem, her GP was contacted as part of the programme so knows she has been trying to come off them, is s/he morally obliged to no longer prescribe the tablets to her?
I'm just thinking about her chances ( i don't think they are going to do a catch up but I'd love to see whether they are successful, they all seem really determined) she seems to be the only one who can have her supply cut off.