The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 73359
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Considering they force patients to take them exactly as prescribed even if they do not need them everyday, once a patient is obligated after agreeing to the terms of the "Pain Contract" if there are people who suffer from pain, they seek whatever comfort measures they are offered by their Dr, people become tired and emotionally drained due to the pain they suffer from. So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. I never thought to much about the use of narcotics and the damage it can cause the patient and their families until a family member had a total of 6 brain surgeries over the last 17 years. So her Dr had her sign this contract for the pressure and pain she experienced, at any time she could've been called in by the Dr for a surprise pill count and urine test, she never thought becoming addicted until her Dr called her in, the nurse counted the pills and asked for a urine sample, which she did, and was shocked by the Dr's action. Since she had good days as well, there were several times she could go an entire day without needing any,however this Dr informed her that she had violated her pain contract, because she had more in her bottle that she should've had, and because he had her on 2-30mg morphine, 1-15mg morphine and 4-10mg of Vicodin everyday except on days she didn't need all of that, and could get by with only taking 1 Vicodin for a few days here and there. He terminated her contract because her urine did not show any of the morphine in her system, and she had more morphine than she was suppose to have. About 2 or 3 days after her Dr terminated it, she started to become more tired, emotional, her headaches came back in full force and felt she was having flu like symptoms, and that is when we all realized she had become addicted and dependent on them, so she returned to her Dr. who gave an impression of "Just another addict looking for narcotics" and refused to help her even after she said she didn't go in for narcotics, instead she was looking for help to get through the detox she was experiencing. That didn't help and after 4 days of going through hell, she was rushed to the hospital, where she sat for 2 days in ICU, she lost so much weight and looked like she was on her death bed, finally a week later, she was discharged. Now she finds other ways to deal with her pain, and refuses to use prescription narcotics EVER again, all because of the pain she went through. Now what Dr out there can force narcotics on a patient regardless if there is any pain or not what so ever, and terminate the contract because for not taking EXACTLY what the bottle says to take. Can any Dr out there see just how one of the reasons prescription drug abuse on the rise, it starts right in their office for many!


I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. Before I begin, please allow me to clarify that I sympathise with the plight of my opponent's family member, and that I am equally angry at the poor conduct of her doctor. However, this will not affect the way I approach the resolution.

As my opponent has not proposed a formal resolution in the form of a declarative statement, I will take the topic sentence of his paragraph as the resolution:

The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr.

Thus the burden of proof is on my honourable opponent to prove that doctors have to bear the greatest responsibility in the rise in prescription drug abuse.

As my opponent has not delineated a set of rules for the debate, I will take the liberty of presenting my opening arguments and refuting some of the arguments my opponent has presented. I will welcome any attempts to present and clarify the rules of this debate by my opponent, for (s)he is the instigator.

Constructive arguments

1) Doctors are not responsible for the underlying causes of drug abuse
The motives behind prescription drug abuse can generally be summarised thus: (1)

  • To feel good or 'high', and experience the metal effects of the drug
  • To relax or relief pressure
  • To reduce appetite, boost vigilance or improve academic performance
  • As a result of addiction
  • To 'fit in'
Even if doctors did not misprescribe, as long as these motives exist, there would always be ways for drug abusers to obtain drugs, such as by receiving drugs from those who have not fully used their medication during previous treatment processes. Conversely, without such motives, there would be no incentive for drug abusers to abuse drugs, even if there were doctors prescribing drugs improperly. This shows that doctors should not be held responsible for drug abuse itself, which should be blamed on the abusers. The rise in drug abuse should be attributed to reasons why more people are having such motivations, and not to the doctors who are simply doing their job by prescribing drugs.

2) Doctors are not responsible for the availability of drugs to abusers.

The majority of teenagers who abuse prescription drugs get their drugs from relatives or friends who have been prescribed the drugs; thus doctors did not prescribe any drugs to them. (2) Thus doctors are not responsible for the fact that they have these drugs at their disposal.

Even in the event where the abuser was prescribed the medicine and decided to over-dose or to use the drugs for other purposes (such as 'getting high'), the doctors have only prescribed drug according to the patient's needs: if those drugs had been taken exactly as prescribed, there would be no quantity of medicine available for future abuse. Therefore, they should not be held responsible for the availability of excess medicine, which ought to be the fault of the patients who did not take drugs according to doctors' instructions.


1) Explanation at the beginning
'So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise.'

My opponent states, at the beginning of the paragraph, that the prescription of narcotics by doctors causes the rise in prescription drug abuse. However, (s)he has not yet given a clear explanation of how this has happened. It appear that (s)he has not explained this causal link clearly. By 'I am baffled at how', (s)he seems to imply that the causal link is obvious and 'goes without saying'; however, I fail to see this relationship.

2) Example of the family member's incident
My opponent has given a detailed account of the personal experience of a loved one. However, I contend that one isolated example alone cannot prove the resolution, which is on the rise of prescription drug abuse, and implies the rise of drug abuse in society as a whole. To conclude that rampant prescription drug abuse is caused by doctors is, therefore, to over-generalise.

Moreover, my opponent has not shown that his or her family member's case was related to drug abuse at all. She did not 'abuse' her drug in any way; she was simply following the prescriptions of a registered doctor, and in fact, she used fewer drugs than needed on some days. This alone is sufficient to prove that she had not abused the drugs.

My opponent states that she had become addicted to the narcotics. While this may be true - it may not be, for she has terminated all her uses of narcotics and resolved not to utilise such medicine again - it does not follow that this is a case of drug abuse, which is the action of using drugs one should not be using, or using drugs in excess quantities. Addition is merely a state in which a body has become dependent on a substance or activity, or to be more precise, 'Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance'
(3), and there is no necessary implication that the addict acts on the addiction.


My final observation is that even if my opponent can show that this type of misprescription leads to drug abuse, it does not necessarily result in a rise thereof; it is therefore his/her responsibility to show that there has been an increase in misprescriptions which has led to an increase (positive change) in the number of drug abusers.


Debate Round No. 1


Wisunshine75 forfeited this round.


Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I extend all arguments. I look forward to my opponent's ensuing arguments and rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2


Wisunshine75 forfeited this round.


I extend all arguments. My opponent has forfeited all rounds but the first. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Thanks Tejas :)
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Apparently nobody wants to vote on this, lol
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Although I confess my lack of expertise in this area, this is a topic with which I'd like to familiarise, and thus I have decided to accept this debate to better inform myself of it. I'll have my first arguments ready before the next round begins. Good luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the majority of the debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Thus, conduct to Pro. | S&G - Tie. Both sides maintained adequate grammar and there were no major errors, grammatical, spelling or punctuation. Thus, S&G is tied. | Arguments - Pro. Pro clearly demonstrated how doctors are not responsible for (a) availability of drugs or (b) effects of drugs. Pro also refuted all Con's claims, and Con failed to *prove* any of the alleged incidents. Con's forfeiture of the other rounds hindered their ability to respond. Thus, arguments to Pro. | Sources - Pro. He used the sole sources. | 6 points to Pro. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.