First Opinion is STAT’s platform for interesting, illuminating, and provocative articles about the life sciences writ large, written by biotech insiders, health care workers, researchers, and others.
To encourage robust, good-faith discussion about issues raised in First Opinion essays, STAT publishes selected Letters to the Editor received in response to them. You can submit a Letter to the Editor here, or find the submission form at the end of any First Opinion essay.
The story
“The DEA’s 2025 quotas for opioids will leave seriously ill patients in pain,” by Rebecca Rodin
The response
As a chronic pain patient (degenerative disc disease and polyarteritis nodosa), I have experienced the anguish and degradation of being denied pain medication firsthand. During the pandemic, I lost my primary care physician to retirement. It took two full years of pleading my case with numerous medical “professionals” before I finally found one willing to prescribe the opioid which allows me to have even a semblance of a quality of life. Surely, we can and must do better. For all of you out there, alone and suffering in silence, I not only feel your pain, I urge you to not despair but instead, allow righteous indignation to rise up within you, for it will renew your sense of purpose and it will help you to fight off the depression that all too often plagues the chronically afflicted. Let your elected officials know by calling them after hours and leaving heartfelt messages that will rightly put them on the spot for this grave social/medical injustice.
— Gregory Apelian
The response
I am a 100% disabled veteran. I’ve been on opioid therapy from the VA for over 12 years for intractable pain and likely to be on it for the rest of my life. The notion that my quality of life may be seriously impacted because of some arbitrary quota set by a bureaucrat at the DEA is unacceptable. I’ll be sending this essay to my congressman and senator urging them to require the DEA to justify this action.
— Jesse Brown
The story
“The recommended women’s health screening that rarely happens,” by Milena M. Weinstein and Samantha J. Pulliam
The response
Kudos to Dr. Weinstein and Dr. Pulliam for addressing a widespread women’s health issue that is minimized by too many male urologists as a nuisance rather than as a driver of accelerated morbidity. I buried my mother in August after she expired of “old age,” but the truth is that urinary incontinence was what led to her decline. Initially, she was embarrassed and reluctant to accept social invitations where she wouldn’t have access to privacy to change the bulky adult diapers she carried in her purse. Eventually, she declined to go even to her grandsons’ homes because incontinence would make the 20-minute ride unpleasant. Before long, my mom was housebound despite appointments with no fewer than five male urologists over a two-year period. Please continue this critical work, so that no one else has to spend their first holiday season unnecessarily without their loved one.
— Debra Rothbard
The story
“The ‘skin in the game’ approach to health care spending has failed,” by Merrill Goozner
The response
Finally, a rational and well-informed article on American health care. Thank you.
— Sharon Johnson
The story
“How ADHD wired me for scientific discovery,” by Jeff Karp
The response
Even though I can appreciate his view on ADHD, as a fellow academic who also has ADHD, I strongly dislike any attempt to picture the condition as something good, a “superpower” of sorts. Life with ADHD is a struggle for thousands of people all around the world; it is really difficult to shape and conform into the neurotypical world when you are neurodiverse — a paradigm also encompassing autism, dyslexia, and other mental disorders. Jeff is truly a singular individual who managed to succeed despite the immense burden of the condition; he is perhaps too nearsighted to comprehend that he doesn’t represents the average. He might not even know what that average is.
— Matheus Zytkuewisz