This is what he is against. Unnecessary harm due to people worrying about the supposed nonsense of the term.
The author explains his reasoning in the article:
"Others seem to kind of equivocate between “pseudoaddiction is fake” vs. “[the phenomenon described by the word pseudoaddiction] is real, but there’s no point in having a separate word for it.” The latter would be reasonable if there weren’t so many people saying the former. Because people are constantly misdiagnosing real distress as addiction, we need a word for when that happens, and pseudoaddiction is as good as any other."
There's absolutely no benefit to say "they are suffering because of pseudoaddiction" instead of saying "they are suffering because their pain was misdiagnosed as addiction."
I think I understand that:
Pain and conditions have somehow become more common since, 1990 and the prescription of opioids has increased since that time.
So now we a situation where:
Some Patients and some other people are becoming addicted to opioids and abusing the prescription system as much as they can, also dying.
Other patients are still being under-prescribed. These patients may also belligerently demand more drugs, like addicts. One can say "they're not addicts, they just seem like it and they actually do need more drugs." This is "pseudoaddiction", near as I can make out.
The one thing I find very puzzling or annoying, is why anyone want to even use the very confusing term "pseudoaddiction" and especially be "against against" it. Jeesh. The situation seems like it could best be handled by saying "banish the jargon and look at the situation".