Is it? That seems cruel, when there is no hope of improving function; for example, when the patient has a terminal form of cancer causing the pain. There’s no need to worry, then, about addiction, surely? But that has been used to argue against increasing a terminal patient’s pain meds.

Even where the primary goal ought to be to improve function, chronic pain can interfere with “function” beyond the merely physical — wearing down a person’s mental health, enjoyment of life, creativity. Where improved function leads to lessening or elimination of pain, terrific! But where there can realistically be no more improvement in physical function, yet pain persists, then, what? “Tough luck”? “Suck it up and deal”?