Narcotics research, rehabilitation, and treatment. Hearings, Ninety ...

:40get away with it as Dr. Keats suggested. The company did make abrief trial but the results were even worse than with cyclazocine andthey would have nothing further to do with it.But something along those lines may be possible. Pentazocine insome circumstances, and in some individuals, has had disagreeableside effects though to a lesser degree then cyclazocine, but it is beingacceptedby physicians and patients at the present time. So in a sensewe have accomplished w4iat we are striving for.Mr. Steigek. Thank you, sir.Chairman Pepper. ]\Ir. Keating ?jMr. Keating. No questions.Chairman Pepper. Mr. Perito, do you have anything to put in therecord or any other questions ?Mr. Perito. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer for the recoi-dthe prepared statement and curriculum vitae of Dr. Eddy.Chairman Pepper. Without objection they will be received.Dr. Eddy, we wish to than you very much for coming here and givingus from your vast knowledge and experience the encouraging testimonyyou have given us this morning.Thank you very much.Dr. Eddy. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to talk with you.(The material referred to follows[Exhibit No. 4(a)]Prepared Statement of Dr. Nathan B. Eddy, Chairman, Committee on ProblemsOF Drug Dependence, Division of Medicax Sciences, National AcademyOF Sciences-National Research CouncilThe Select Committee on Crime has seen the resolutions of the Committee onDrug Addiction and Narcotics, Division of Medical Sciences, National ResearchCouncil, the earliest of which has been quoted by Dr. Seevers today. These resolutionsmaintain that medical practice, and the patient, would suffer no loss if thenatural alkaloids of opium, and substances derived from them, were not available.All medical indications for morphine and/or codeine, as well as for substancessemisynthetically derived from them, can be met by substances of wholly syntheticorigin. Adequate substitution is possible. Is it practical or advantageous? Manyconsiderations must enter into the answer to this question. Dr. Seevers and Dr.Brill have, or will, discuss some of them. Obviou^^ly the advantages and disadvantagesof potential substitutes are important, so I offer for the record briefsummaries of some replacements already on the market. The presentation is inapproximate chronological order.Pethidine (meperidine, Demerol®) was the first wholly synthetic morphinelikeanalgesic, the characteristics of which were discovered only incidentally.Close scrutiny, however, revealed that its structure corresponded ro an internalpart of the morphine molecule, hence, presumably, its morphine-like properties.As with heroin 40 years earlier, pethidine was introduced as not dependenceproducing,a claim which undoubtedly was of great importance in building thedrug's popularity and is in vogue among many physicians even today. Fortunatelywe liavc not again been so far off the mark. The optimal analgesic dose of pethidine,effective against many types of pain, is 100 nig. approximately equivalentto 10 mg. of morphine when each is given intramusculary. Pethidine is availablefor oral administration, usually in combination with aspirin, but its effectivenessby this route is not as great as the small dose in the cominerical preparationseems to indicate. The use of pethidine is accompanied by the same sort of sideeffects as are associated with the use of morpliine witli only minor quantitativedifferences. Sleepiness and constipation may be less frequent, a feeling of wellbeingmore frequent. It produces respiratory depression, relative to its analgesicaction, at least as great as that following morphine, and is probably more likelyto cause a fall in blood pressure. Pethidine has been used widely in obstetrics