Comments on: Bush Admin: If We Save Drug Addicts’ Lives, That Encourages Drug Use!

By: BobbyV

BobbyV — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:46:54 +0000

Dr. Madras’ opposition to the use of Narcan in overdose-rescue programs clearly indicates the administration’s callous disregard for the politically powerless, economically-disadvantaged underclass whose lives are directly impacted by the fiasco we call the War on Drugs. Until we recognize that drug abuse is a medical problem – and not a criminal problem – we’ll continue wasting millions of dollars, and countless lives, in a fear-driven frenzy to incarcerate generations of poor Americans whose only crime was in their attempt to escape, albeit momentarily, the pain of a future with little hope.

“For he comes, the human child/To the waters and the wild//
With a faery, hand in hand/from a world more full of weeping than you can understand.”
Yeats, The Stolen Child

By: Kate L.

Kate L. — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:47:27 +0000

Lots of OTC drugs are really bad for you if used improperly. Shoot, Tylenol can do more long lasting damage to your body if you take too much too often than pot.

I don’t especially think “potential side effect” is in and of itself a good reason to keep something that has proven to be effective at reducing deaths out of public hands.

It really is clear that (some) people have no regard for the lives of drug users. Amp is right about the dangers of moral absolutism.

By: acm

acm — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:23:01 +0000

I’m also reminded of the whole faith-based argument about teaching kids about contraception — better that the Bad Ones should get pregnant (or catch a lethal disease, etc.) and Learn Their Lesson . . .

By: Dianne

Dianne — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:15:57 +0000

Narcan’s label indicates cardiac arrest as a possible side effect.

Given that its indication is for use when people have stopped breathing and turned blue, I’d say that the risk is likely to be acceptable. Defibrillators can (will) also cause cardiac arrest if used on someone who is not in V fib/tach.

By: SamChevre

SamChevre — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:51:51 +0000

But it doesn’t require much training because it’s impossible to overdose on Narcan.

Overdose isn’t the only problem–non-OD-related side effects can also be a reason for restricting a drug’s use. Narcan’s label indicates cardiac arrest as a possible side effect. I doubt this is the reason for the government position (the War on (Some) Drugs is a fully bi-partisan lunacy), but I wouldn’t say that no possibility of OD should mean a drug is available OTC.

By: Dianne

Dianne — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:04:27 +0000

In general, from the public health perspective, the more people with the training and resources to provide aid in life threatening emergencies the better. For example, recovery after out of hospital sudden cardiac death was rare before people in the general public were trained to use CPR, even though medical personnel were taught it routinely for years prior. Having external defibrillators scattered here and there has helped even more. So on experience and probability grounds alone, having narcan spray in the hands of the public is likely to save lives and brain cells.