I don't feel I overreacted by sending that email to my neuro/migraine specialist.

Not at all! Not knowing what kind of ordeal you will have to endure each week is not acceptable. A solution that does not involve having to go to the ER each week would be much better, but if that is the protocol at the moment then the treatment needs to be consistent. I hope the doctor has some thoughts on compelling the ER to follow his orders.

You definitely did not overreact -- this is appalling.

ita !, I would incorporate some of what Laura mentioned, about their refusal to follow the regimen your neuro has prescribed and explained in exhaustive detail, and also mention their consistent refusal, when they have all the neuro's contact information, to call and discuss your history, your regimen and his recommendations instead of simply privileging their own judgment over all that history.

They've consistently, profoundly disrespected his judgment and experience as a physician. Their refusal to follow his prescribed regimen or to question him directly about it rendered the Botox trial useless. Their actions have materially increased your physical suffering and are now endangering your livelihood; do they think you made him up? Do they think he's a weak-willed patsy to a cunning drug-seeker, or do they just think he's an idiot?

(eta: So some of them, sometimes, follow his recs to the letter, but that still isn't good enough. It's torture to you to not know which it's going to be until the moment it happens or doesn't happen, and it's still deeply insulting to him to have the respect accorded his knowledge of you and your history entirely dependent on who happens to be on call at the moment you walk in.)

Most of the doctors I know would be (and have been; it's happened before) livid at another medical team on whose cooperation they depend so thoroughly undermining their medical plan for their patients and endangering their patients' wellbeing (and their own standing in the community). If you can get your neuro good and pissed and spoiling for a righteous evidence-based fight with them on his own behalf as well as yours, it should end up helping you.

Mind, I totally and completely think the absolute most important thing is that you're in intractable pain that SHOULD NOT BE intractable, and your neuro's professional reputation is extremely small potatoes compared to your pain. But if those small potatoes can get a righteous fire lit under his ass, then use 'em.

re: Petraeus, anymore I find standard adultery unsurprising. Too many powerful people through history have had lovers for me to be outraged. The secrecy and liability to blackmail, however, is the sticking point.

ita, I would be as detailed as possible when you write your email to your doctor. Write out his prescribed treatment, include the dates and times and names (if you can) of the doctors, residents, and nurses who have refused to follow his treatment plan. Be really detailed about how this is effecting your life, I'd include everything JZ said. Then email it not only to your doctor, but to the hospital social worker, and the hospital ombudsman if they have one or anyone else who deals with patient relations in the hospital.

What JZ and askye said. You need an advocate, dammit. It's almost impossible to be proactive when you're in pain, and when it's not something visible, doctors sometimes treat like like you're talking about seeing a fucking alien: "Oh, your head hurts? Isn't that cute? Having some extra-strength Tylenol!"

I have complete empathy(although your sitch is way worse than mine, with the "Oh, insomnia! Everyone has bad nights! Oh, gosh, 10 mgs of Ambien would knock ANYONE out! You must be drug-seeking!" No, bitches, it fucking doesn't. I am SLEEP and sanity seeking.)

Connie, ITA. Infidelity, while I frown at betraying a spouse (but hey, if you have an open marriage, whatevs!) is one thing, and kind of just a "Well, you're a asshole" but doing it -- kind of badly -- as the head of a freaking SPY network just seems sadly incompetent.

What I find entirely non-coincidental is Petraeus's resignation immediately following the election. By coming to light then it didn't impact the election, and also hit the newscycle when political reporters were already exhausted and/or busy with their post-election analyses.

Yep.

What I find entirely non-coincidental is Petraeus's resignation immediately following the election.

My crazy now-unfriended FB acquaintance posted that it's clearly suspicious that Petraeus AND Clinton announced their resignations so quickly after the election, so obviously it's to avoid further inquiry into Benghazi.

I just don't understand what planet some people live on.

Um, because resigning will exempt them from testifying? I'm assuming this is not the case. (too lazy to verify) Of course we have known for a really long time that Clinton would be going.

My conjecture on Petraeus is that while he may be a crappy husband he is a good soldier and that would influence his timing.