By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

Society's response to pain management has shifted over the years. While pain treatment today often generates controversy, in the past it was viewed differently.

During the U.S. Civil War, a wounded soldier who was in agony was often given enough chloroform “to render him insensible to pain." Afterwards, soldiers may not have recalled the pain they felt, even if they remembered having surgery. We were concerned enough for our soldiers to ease their suffering with the most effective medication that was available.

At other periods in our history, society worried more about the risks of treating pain than the debilitating and sometimes lethal effects of the pain itself. At times, we even questioned whether pain was real and whether people were just inventing symptoms to receive attention or drugs.

People with pain have often been stigmatized. They have been expected to just tough it out, and those who couldn't were accused of being weak.

The Pendulum Swings Toward Empathy

In the 1990s, most people dying of cancer experienced excruciating pain, despite the fact that doctors had the means to help them. Opioids could ease their suffering. And a consensus began to grow in the medical profession that prescribing opioids for cancer-related pain was the right thing to do. Soon after, doctors began prescribing opioids for non-cancer pain, such as arthritis. The number of prescriptions increased.

Treating pain with opioids became acceptable -- even expected -- when the alternative was to let people suffer. It seemed reasonable at the time. There was little evidence then that opioids would cause serious harm if people used the pain medication as directed.

We always acknowledged that a subset of the patient population was at risk for abuse or addiction. Pain doctors like me did the best we could for patients with the research that was available to us at the time. Perhaps, in some cases, we would do things differently now.

Casting Blame for the Opioid Crisis

Ultimately, “overprescribing” was recognized as one of the contributors to America’s drug crisis. Looking back, it is easy to cast blame. We now have better information about the risks of using opioids. But there were few effective tools at the time to control pain, so prescribing opioids seemed like a valid alternative to letting patients suffer unnecessarily.

As more opioids were prescribed, there was a corresponding increase in all drug overdoses. That set off alarms, even though the causes of overdoses are myriad and complicated, and there is no simple correlation between rising opioid prescriptions and increased overdose deaths.

Societal attitudes began to shift again in the first decade of the 21st century. Families who lost loved ones to overdoses were looking for someone to blame. There were public and private demands to hold someone accountable for their deaths. The initial target was the pharmaceutical industry.

This wasn't anything new. The American public has more hostility toward Big Pharma than any other industry. A 2019 Gallop poll found that the public felt more distrust of Big Pharma than they did of the federal government!

The news media covered the tragedies of teenagers and young adults who were dying from overdoses. Often, those deaths involved opioids. The media also covered stories of families torn apart by addiction. Then the media's narrative shifted to allegations of deceit, greed and cover-ups by the pharmaceutical industry.

At first, they focused on Purdue Pharma. The company was making billions of dollars from OxyContin, and they were accused of irresponsibly promoting its use. The federal government filed a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma and this week announced a $8.3 billion settlement with the company.  

I recall the initial complaints about OxyContin were unrelated to the increased number of opioid related overdoses. Instead, Workers Compensation groups were complaining about the skyrocketing cost of the drug. In the late 1990’s, I recall hearing the medical director of Utah’s workers’ compensation program speak to the local pain society. He angrily insisted that the cost of OxyContin was exploding and must be stopped.

A new "Opium War" had begun. But this time, it was not between the Chinese and British. Instead, it involved health insurers and opioid manufacturers.

Chasing a Pot of Gold

The need to blame someone for the overdoses and make them pay for the harm opioids caused accelerated. Opioid manufacturers and physicians were in the cross-hairs of policymakers and law enforcement agencies.

Opioid distributors and patient advocacy groups were also accused of contributing to the drug crisis. It was alleged that distributors knowingly and irresponsibly supplied communities with large amounts of pills that far exceeded the amount needed for medical purposes. Advocacy groups were accused of being front organizations for opioid manufacturers. Whether or not distributors were irresponsible depends on one’s perspective, but the accusation about patient organizations was often baseless and malicious.

Of course, the bandwagon of accusers grew as the potential pot of gold increased. Lawsuits filed by states, cities and counties could result in a golden egg if they could convince a sympathetic jury or judge that they had been wronged. The sympathies of the public turned more and more against the drugs used in pain treatment.

The Devil Effect Harms Us All

Greed and the harm it causes is a well-known story. However, what is not as well appreciated is how it leads to a cognitive bias called the "devil effect" -- in which one bad quality creates the impression that there must be only negative qualities associated with a person or entity.

The belief that Big Pharma is inherently bad makes it difficult to appreciate the good things (such as vaccines and cures) that come from the industry, and to separate it from the bad things. Today, when doctors consult with or accept any funding from the industry, particularly the companies that make opioids, it is often referred to as “being in bed with the devil.”

Society’s belief that Big Pharma is inherently evil helps explain why people in pain are struggling. The truth is, Big Pharma is not intrinsically bad -- although there are some bad actors in the industry -- and drugs used to manage pain are essential partners in healing when used appropriately.

Our tendency toward black or white blanket perceptions -- and our choice to not learn about the complexities that would allow for a more balanced approach in our reasoning -- has consequences for every aspect of society. When it comes to pain management, the devil effect has yielded the terrible unintended cost of suffering by innocent people.

The pendulum eventually may swing back toward empathy for people who are suffering, but not until more people recognize the influence the devil effect has on society's attitudes towards Big Pharma, opioids and people in pain.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is author of the award-winning book The Painful Truth, and co-producer of the documentary It Hurts Until You Die. Opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or policy of PRA Health Sciences. You can find Lynn on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.