Is my dream of becoming a nurse possible while living on prescript pain pills

Published

Hi,, I really need some sound advice and help!! I am 41 years young and have always dreamed of becoming a nurse. I have wanted to go to nursing school now since my children were toddlers. They are now 20 and 22 years old. I have lived with Fibromyalgia now for atleast the past 15 years and finally got my life back 4 years ago when I was treated by a wonderfull doctor who also has Fibro himself. In the very beginning we tried several different medications, anti-inflamatories, muscle relaxers. Nothing relieved my pain, and the majority of medications made me very depressed and suicidal, He eventially prescribed me the pain killer, Vicodin. Over these last y4 ears of taking this narcotic, I finally actually feel like a normal human being now. When you are in sooo much pain 24 hours, 7 days a week, it takes so much out of you, you feel like you are just struggeling to survive to get through the days. This is my question that I need help with. If I go to nursing school and make my dreams come true, will it all be just a waist?? What are the chances of getting hired by a hospital, doctors office, ect. if they know that I take a prescribed narcotic daily for my fibromyalgia pain. I am so afraid that I am going to spend all this time and money to finally make my dream come true of becoming a nurse, and in the end, it will all be for nothing because of this stupid pain pill that I take daily. I have thought about just to stop taking vicodin when I get myself thru school and graduate, by what if in the end I do that and then can't work because I hurt so bad??? It will all just be for nothing, not to mention my dream will be shot. Can anybody truly give me an answer or tell me where I can find out.

Specializes in Med/Surg.
Agreed that chronic pain med use is different from short term use.

However, neither of our opinions matter where the BON is concerned.

That's why I advised the OP to check with THEIR board.

Oh, exactly right. I know my opinion isn't really worth jack. :)

Specializes in Nephrology, Cardiology, ER, ICU.

No Cherry - I didn't mean it that way - tee hee hee.

I've learned a lot of times, opinions don't matter unless they come from the BON - lol..

Specializes in Health Information Management.
I am sure that many BON's do consider some meds as working "impaired," no matter what, but I do think this is unfair. (Before anyone flames me, hear me out.)

People can be on a variety of meds long term, for a variety of reasons. For these people, they do not get affected negatively by these meds (be them narcotics, benzos, whatever); in fact, they function MORE normally when taking them. Trying to work without treatment, when you have severe persistent anxiety or pain, IMO is more "impaired" than not taking them. You can't concentrate in light of them.

Of course, every situation is different. Taking Vicodin for a short term, acute condition wouldn't be the same. In that case, your body wouldn't be used to it and you are much more susceptible to side effects.

Just my humble opinion.

Quite so.

Try talking to me on a day when I'm not properly "managed" for my condition (spinal nerve injury)! No muscle relaxants, neurontin, and strong pain meds = me bedridden and useless. I'm unable to contribute to society. Now, properly managed, I'm back in school, have excellent grades, and hope to have a long, productive career. I was honest enough to acknowledge that working in a direct care setting simply wasn't going to be possible for me. That wasn't because of the meds, but as a result of my inability to lift patients, stand for long periods, etc. So instead, I'm in an allied health field (health information management) that is screaming for qualified, intelligent people.

OP, I second TraumaRUs's warning to the OP about consulting your BON and another PP's advice about taking a long, hard look with regard to whether your body can truly take what nursing will demand from you day after day after day. Even if your body can do it, where will all that effort and strain leave you when you're off duty? I know it's hard to look at things like that clearly when you want to do something so badly, but it's vital that you do so before committing yourself.

I hope someday we all get to the point where appropriate long-term therapy with narcotic medication is acknowledged by governing/licensing bodies as appropriate in certain situations. Labeling anyone who uses narcotic meds as "impaired" deprives us of the talents who truly require that type of treatment. However, we haven't reached that day yet.

I wish you the very best in your endeavors, OP. Remember, if one dream doesn't pan out, it doesn't mean that every path to a productive and happy future is closed to you. :)

I am sure that many BON's do consider some meds as working "impaired," no matter what, but I do think this is unfair. (Before anyone flames me, hear me out.)

People can be on a variety of meds long term, for a variety of reasons. For these people, they do not get affected negatively by these meds (be them narcotics, benzos, whatever); in fact, they function MORE normally when taking them. Trying to work without treatment, when you have severe persistent anxiety or pain, IMO is more "impaired" than not taking them. You can't concentrate in light of them.

Of course, every situation is different. Taking Vicodin for a short term, acute condition wouldn't be the same. In that case, your body wouldn't be used to it and you are much more susceptible to side effects.

Just my humble opinion.

I agree, but to play Devil's Advocate:

If I'm someone who can hold my liquor, and who is unaffected by a single drink, does that mean I can have one beer during my lunch break? If not, why not? And how is that different than someone who pops a narcotic during their lunch break?

If you do happen to make a mistake and it results in a lawsuit, how will a judge or jury determine exactly how unaffected you were at the time the mistake was made? How can you (or the hospital) ensure that the error was simply human error and not an error made by an "impaired" nurse.

Other than your word can you prove that you are unimpaired by your prescribed controlled substances?

And to be honest, if it were me or a loved one in the hospital room, I would not want a nurse who had a narcotic or benzo actively acting her his or her system. I don't care if they're prescribed it and have been taking the same dosage for years and years. I want a clean nurse...well one who's clean for her shift. What people do on their own time is their business, and I'm not one to interfere.

And to be honest, if it were me or a loved one in the hospital room, I would not want a nurse who had a narcotic or benzo actively acting her his or her system. I don't care if they're prescribed it and have been taking the same dosage for years and years. I want a clean nurse...well one who's clean for her shift.

for me, i would much rather have a nurse who has taken their prescribed, long-term narcotic/benzo, than to have a nurse who can barely function, r/t their unresolved pain and/or panic.

i am referring to those where the nature of their disease is chronic, well-explored and has come up with a regimen that works for the person...

where they've been on said regimen for year+, and its novelty is no longer a concern:

that their body has tolerated and adjusted accordingly.

MUCH rather have the aforementioned, than having to deal with a nurse who is keeled over in the med room, or has found an isolated corner to try and regain an iota of composure.

much rather.:)

leslie

Specializes in Med/Surg.
I agree, but to play Devil's Advocate:

If I'm someone who can hold my liquor, and who is unaffected by a single drink, does that mean I can have one beer during my lunch break? If not, why not? And how is that different than someone who pops a narcotic during their lunch break?

If you do happen to make a mistake and it results in a lawsuit, how will a judge or jury determine exactly how unaffected you were at the time the mistake was made? How can you (or the hospital) ensure that the error was simply human error and not an error made by an "impaired" nurse.

Other than your word can you prove that you are unimpaired by your prescribed controlled substances?

And to be honest, if it were me or a loved one in the hospital room, I would not want a nurse who had a narcotic or benzo actively acting her his or her system. I don't care if they're prescribed it and have been taking the same dosage for years and years. I want a clean nurse...well one who's clean for her shift. What people do on their own time is their business, and I'm not one to interfere.

Apples to oranges, and I honestly can't believe you think that's a legitimate comparison.

Medications are diagnosed for appropriate, necessary conditions. Alcohol never could and never would fall in to that category. Simply using the term "pops" narcotics shows your ignorance on the entire topic.

No, I guess "technically" a person isn't "clean" when they have those meds in their system, but that does not equate to being impaired. If you'd rather have a nurse in either so much pain, so anxious, or so depressed that they cannot perform their duties, that's your perogative. But you've absolutely perpetuated the stigma of both chronic pain and mental health patients.

I think attitudes like yours are one of the factors in the places that have "zero tolerance" policies.

I don't know how one would prove lack of impairment, other than length of treatment. The prescribing physician would probably be able to make a case for it. I know that's the riff. But, when someone AUTOMATICALLY assumes impairment, such as you do, that's part of the whole attitude that all chronic pain patients are "drug seekers," also. Yes, there are a good number of patients that are, but there is at least an equal number that both need their meds, and take them as prescribed and responsibly.

How can a school have a zero-tolerance policy against prescription drugs if you have a prescription? Is it narcotics? Even then, what if you get injured during school and need Vicodin or something?

Beats the heck out of me, but they make the rules and if you don't like them there is a list of people waiting to fill the spot.

Those with the power make the rules.

Apples to oranges, and I honestly can't believe you think that's a legitimate comparison.

It absolutely is when you're considering the aspect of "it doesn't affect me." My point was, how do you prove that one is unaffected.

Medications are diagnosed for appropriate, necessary conditions. Alcohol never could and never would fall in to that category. Simply using the term "pops" narcotics shows your ignorance on the entire topic.

Think outside the box before jumping to conclusions. I ultimately agreed with the poster I quoted and I was playing devil's advocate, which I clearly stated. Please try being more thorough.

No, I guess "technically" a person isn't "clean" when they have those meds in their system, but that does not equate to being impaired. If you'd rather have a nurse in either so much pain, so anxious, or so depressed that they cannot perform their duties, that's your perogative.

A nurse who was that impaired by their pain would not be allowed to work. They would have been sent home. So, to quote you "Apples to oranges." And no, I wouldn't want an impaired nurse in any capacity, whether it's illness, pain, or sleep deprivation. But, would you want a nurse who says she's able to work while on narcotics just because she says she (or he) can? Would you take them at their word if they were caring for your child? My point is, there is no objective way to quantify level of impairment, and as such, there is no safe way for an employer to allow a nurse to work while on narcs or other mind altering substances.

I, personally, won't take sinus medication even when I'm stuffed up and miserable because the decongestant makes me high, but I can function, just not as well as if I hadn't taken it. But, I could take it if I wanted to because it's legal, just as prescribed narcs are legal. Both alter the mind to some extent though. Would you want me as your nurse if I was on sudafed? (the decongestant will alter some at least...or maybe just me...who knows....)

But you've absolutely perpetuated the stigma of both chronic pain and mental health patients.

I think attitudes like yours are one of the factors in the places that have "zero tolerance" policies.

Again, to reiterate, please try reading a post completely before jumping to conclusions. Knee jerk reactions are really unbecoming.

And I think these zero tolerance policies are in place for legal issues, not because of my alleged "attitude." Again, how can you PROVE that a nurse who has taken a mind altering substance does not have an altered mind?

I don't know how one would prove lack of impairment, other than length of treatment.

And how would you quantify that? Is a nurse no longer considered impaired after she's taken vicodin for 1 month? 6? Does weight factor into play? What about for people who require larger doses of medication because they seem to have, not a tolerance, but a bit of a resistance? I, personally, have a friend who requires higher doses of medications because the average dose doesn't work for him. This is for a range of medications, not just narcs. How do you prove that?

The prescribing physician would probably be able to make a case for it.

Would he? I doubt it. If he were to authorize this and something terrible happened to a patient, he'd possibly be on the line as well. Do you really think many doctors would be willing to do that?

I know that's the riff. But, when someone AUTOMATICALLY assumes impairment, such as you do,

Ugh. You are really bad at comprehension.. I'm glad you AUTOMATICALLY ASSumed the opposite of what I said and when I didn't make an assumption about anyone. YOUR mind went straight to drug-addiction; YOU made that leap. I never even alluded to addiction in my post, you just ASSumed I did, and you know what they say about assumptions, it makes YOU look like....

... than to have a nurse who can barely function, r/t their unresolved pain and/or panic....

i am referring to those where the nature of their disease is chronic, well-explored and has come up with a regimen that works for the person...

where they've been on said regimen for year+, and its novelty is no longer a concern:

that their body has tolerated and adjusted accordingly.

I agree. I know people who are able to take their pain medications and not appear altered in the slightest. But, if the medicine is affecting the pain, it is affecting your mind. To what degree is the question. I would trust my friend to drive on pain medicine, but that is because I know him well and have spent enough time around him both stone cold sober and on medication. I would not get in a car with someone who just took a Percocet and said "Don't worry. I take them all the time; they're prescribed." How do I know how long he's been taking them? How do I know that it only took his body 1 month to adjust? It is different for everyone after all. Would you get in the car with them? (Pretend this is a friend of a friend or a person you're familiar with, but don't know well.) Along the same lines, I have not spent that time around the nurse caring for me or my family to be able to confidently make that assessment of them one way or another. Some people are unaffected, some people are good at appearing unaffected, some are impaired enough to be a liability, but not aware how impaired they are.Nor would I trust the hospital to make that assessment either as there is no objective way to measure impairment.

I know people who can be drunk as skunks and still walk the line just as good as if they were sober. (And so CherryBreeze doesn't freak out again, I'm making the comparison to alcohol because it alters your mind; not because I'm assuming the drunk person is an alcoholic and therefore the person taking pain medication is a junkie....) Do you consider someone who is just slightly over the legal limit unsafe to drive even though some people are able to have a 0.09 blood alcohol and not weave and run red lights? What about someone who has a .15 blood alcohol level and is able to maintain his lane and stop when directed? It's safe to say that most people are drunk at a 0.15 BAL, and that most people are not grossly impaired at 0.08 BAL. So, we are able to set a safe limit that one can imbibe and still be able to drive. That would have to be done for narcotics as well. And that seems harder to determine. There is a zero tolerance of alcohol at work, why? Because it could potentially impair you, even if half a beer really wont.

I agree that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....meaning if a nurse looks and acts sober, they likely are, but, for legal purposes, how do you prove it? How could you prove to a family that had a love one die or suffer severe harm due to a medication error, that, while, yes, the nurse had taken a Vicodin 2 hours before, the med error didn't occur because of that. It was simple human error. You see, it doesn't affect him because he takes them a lot. If you were that family, would you accept that?

MUCH rather have the aforementioned, than having to deal with a nurse who is keeled over in the med room, or has found an isolated corner to try and regain an iota of composure.

much rather.:)

leslie

For much the same reasons that nurses who are found to be taking drugs/drinking, vomiting or very ill, or appear too sleep deprived to safely practice, I would imagine someone unable to move due to severe pain would be sent home or to the ER. So, kind of a moot point.

This ultimately boils down to a philosophical/legal question.

ETA: And legal drives almost all policy, so until someone can objectively prove they're not impaired while taking narcs, the hospital will be incurring significant risks. Sucks, I know. They need to make laws regarding lawsuits....

Specializes in Health Information Management.

I understand there is research being done into the argument for long-term "maintenance" pain medication usage in those with chronic conditions that cause moderate to severe pain. I hope that research will be able to provide some more conclusive answers to the questions and issues you raise, Fribblet.

I understand there is research being done into the argument for long-term "maintenance" pain medication usage in those with chronic conditions that cause moderate to severe pain. I hope that research will be able to provide some more conclusive answers to the questions and issues you raise, Fribblet.

That would be nice, and not for me, but for people who have chronic pain issues.

If they are able to come up with an objective measure of "impairment" (I don't know what you'd call it. ) and standards were set about safe "limits," then the liability issue would go away, and the problem would be solved...mostly.

I'm sure there would be a quite a few sensationalists who would go wild with the news. It would be tough PR for sure.

ETA: This is a really interesting issue. It's nice to have some thought provoking stuff on Allnurses. ;)

Specializes in Med/Surg.
It absolutely is when you're considering the aspect of "it doesn't affect me." My point was, how do you prove that one is unaffected.

Think outside the box before jumping to conclusions. I ultimately agreed with the poster I quoted and I was playing devil's advocate, which I clearly stated. Please try being more thorough.

A nurse who was that impaired by their pain would not be allowed to work. They would have been sent home. So, to quote you "Apples to oranges." And no, I wouldn't want an impaired nurse in any capacity, whether it's illness, pain, or sleep deprivation. But, would you want a nurse who says she's able to work while on narcotics just because she says she (or he) can? Would you take them at their word if they were caring for your child? My point is, there is no objective way to quantify level of impairment, and as such, there is no safe way for an employer to allow a nurse to work while on narcs or other mind altering substances.

I, personally, won't take sinus medication even when I'm stuffed up and miserable because the decongestant makes me high, but I can function, just not as well as if I hadn't taken it. But, I could take it if I wanted to because it's legal, just as prescribed narcs are legal. Both alter the mind to some extent though. Would you want me as your nurse if I was on sudafed? (the decongestant will alter some at least...or maybe just me...who knows....)

Again, to reiterate, please try reading a post completely before jumping to conclusions. Knee jerk reactions are really unbecoming.

And I think these zero tolerance policies are in place for legal issues, not because of my alleged "attitude." Again, how can you PROVE that a nurse who has taken a mind altering substance does not have an altered mind?

And how would you quantify that? Is a nurse no longer considered impaired after she's taken vicodin for 1 month? 6? Does weight factor into play? What about for people who require larger doses of medication because they seem to have, not a tolerance, but a bit of a resistance? I, personally, have a friend who requires higher doses of medications because the average dose doesn't work for him. This is for a range of medications, not just narcs. How do you prove that?

Would he? I doubt it. If he were to authorize this and something terrible happened to a patient, he'd possibly be on the line as well. Do you really think many doctors would be willing to do that?

Ugh. You are really bad at comprehension.. I'm glad you AUTOMATICALLY ASSumed the opposite of what I said and when I didn't make an assumption about anyone. YOUR mind went straight to drug-addiction; YOU made that leap. I never even alluded to addiction in my post, you just ASSumed I did, and you know what they say about assumptions, it makes YOU look like....

I didn't assume anything. I did read your post thoroughly, thank you. You not liking what I had to say does not make it my fault. "Popping" narcs is an assumption, and the implication of that goes beyond someone who takes them responsibly. If you don't want your message "misconstrued" (although I firmly believe that it wasn't), perhaps YOU should word things more appropriately.

+ Join the Discussion