The overdose epidemic continues to accelerate, with deaths from overdose increasing from approximately 78,000 pre-pandemic to nearly 100,000 presently. While much of the focus in mainstream media has been on overdoses from opioids, women are overdosing on a variety of drugs. The gendered dimensions of the overdose epidemic have been largely ignored even though this crisis has been building for decades. From 1997 to 2017, the overall death rate for women ages 30–64 from overdoses has increased 260 (...) percent. The largest increases in this group were women between the ages of 55 and 64. Factors such as the sexual division of labor, greater financial insecurity, intimate partner violence, and significant burdens from... (shrink)

In this issue, Marshall et al discuss the importance of capacity and autonomy in the setting of opioid overdose, in Revise and Refuse: Capacity, Autonomy, and Refusal of Care After Opioid Overdose...

North America is in the grips of an epidemic of opioid-related poisonings. Overdose education and naloxone distribution programmes emerged as an option for structurally vulnerable populations who could not or would not access mainstream emergency medical services in the event of an overdose. These task shifting programmes utilize lay persons to deliver opioid resuscitation in the context of longstanding stigmatization and marginalization from mainstream healthcare services. OEND programmes exist at the intersection of harm reduction and emergency services. One (...) goal of OEND programmes is to help redress the health-related inequities common among people who use drugs, which include minimizing the gap between people who use drugs and the formal healthcare system. However, if this goal is not achieved these inequities may be entrenched. In this article, we consider the ethical promises and perils associated with OEND as task shifting. We argue that public health practitioners must consider the ethical aspects of task shifting programmes that may inadvertently harm already structurally vulnerable populations. We believe that even if OEND programmes reduce opioid-related deaths, we nevertheless question if, by virtue of its existence, OEND programmes might also unintentionally disenfranchise structurally vulnerable populations from comprehensive healthcare services, including mainstream emergency care. (shrink)

In “Revive and Refuse: Capacity, Autonomy, and Refusal of Care After Opioid Overdose”, Marshall, Derse, Weiner, and Joseph contend that patients who may appear to satisfy the standard criteria for...

Physicians generally recommend that patients resuscitated with naloxone after opioid overdose stay in the emergency department for a period of observation in order to prevent harm from delayed sequelae of opioid toxicity. Patients frequently refuse this period of observation despiteenefit to risk. Healthcare providers are thus confronted with the challenge of how best to protect the patient’s interests while also respecting autonomy, including assessing whether the patient is making an autonomous choice to refuse care. Previous studies have shown that (...) physicians have widely divergent approaches to navigating these conflicts. This paper reviews what is known about the effects of opioid use disorder on decision-making, and argues that some subset of these refusals are non-autonomous choices, even when patients appear to have decision making capacity. This conclusion has several implications for how physicians assess and respond to patients refusing medical recommendations after naloxone resuscitation. (shrink)

1 Overview of the problem2 Situationally Specific Normal Functioning and Capacities3 Kingma’s Criticism4 How Normal Responses can be Pathological5 Too Many Pathologies?6 Conclusions.

In August 2017, a group of activists erected in Ottawa's downtown a tent as a first overdose prevention site as a response to what the public and the activists perceived as an epidemic—a devastating wave of opioid and fentanyl overdoses in Canada. The Ontario premier was urged to declare an emergency that would provide increased funding for harm reduction and also send a message to survivors and families that the lives of their loved ones mattered. Thus, the discourses around (...) the so‐called opioid crisis used a language of moral sentiments to legitimate political action. This “new humanitarianism” is considered a priori as good, but in this article, I ask what is politically at stake if we base our actions on the logic of humanitarian reason. The new universalism of humanitarian organizations is based on the individualism of human rights and thus on a moral imperative that replaces the political. Initiatives like the OPS movement often fill the gaps in social services in the absence of the state and address social problems as emergencies and public health issues, thereby transforming them into medical problems—performing the medicalization of sociopolitical problems. This is what I call the NGOization of the opioid crisis. This form of humanitarianism is a universalism of the temporal present without any universal promise for a better future or the amelioration of human conditions—it is a humanitarianism of emergency. What characterizes new humanitarianism is that it responds to situations of suffering that are the result of increasing inequality and injustices without addressing the root causes of this suffering. Not addressing these causes means to be complicit in perpetuating the inequalities and to restrict visions of possible alternatives. (shrink)

In 2022, an estimated 110,000 people died of an opioid-related drug overdose in the United States (Ahmad et al. 2024) primarily related to illicit fentanyl. However, fatal overdoses comprise only a...

Overdose deaths involving prescription opioids killed more than 17,000 Americans in 2017, marking a five-fold increase since 1999. High prescribing rates of opioid analgesics have been a substantial contributor to prescription opioid misuse, dependence, overdose and heroin use. There was recognition approximately ten years ago that opioid prescribing patterns were contributing to this startling increase in negative opioid-related outcomes, and federal actions, including Medicare reimbursement reform and regulatory actions, were initiated to restrict opioid prescribing. The current manuscript is (...) a description of those actions, the effect of those actions on opioid prescribing and related patient outcomes. We also describe our proposal of methods of expanding these efforts as an important piece to further reduce opioid-related misuse, dependence, and overdose death. (shrink)

The article “Revive and Refuse: Capacity, Autonomy, and Refusal of Care After Opioid Overdose,” Marshall et al. (2024) highlights the critical issue of care after an opioid overdose. “Revive and Re...

Drug overdose has recently surpassed motor vehicle accidents to become the leading cause of unintentional injury death in the United States. The epidemic is largely driven by opioids such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone, which kill more Americans than heroin and cocaine combined. The demographics of overdose have changed over the past few decades as well: according to the latest data, the average overdose victim is now a non-Hispanic white man aged 45-54.These deaths — over 16,000 per (...) year — are almost entirely preventable. Opioid overdose kills by slowly depressing respiration, a process that can take several hours. It can be quickly and effectively reversed by the timely administration of naloxone, an opioid antagonist that works by displacing opioids from the brain receptors to which they attach, reversing their depressant effect. Naloxone, also known as Narcan, has many benefits and minimal risks. Although it is a prescription drug, it is not a controlled substance and has no abuse potential. (shrink)

According to the Institute of Medicine, chronic pain affects at least 116 million adults in the United States, which is more than the total affected by heart disease, cancer, and diabetes combined. Pain costs the nation up to $635 billion each year in medical treatment and lost productivity. It has been conceptualized as a public health problem due to its prevalence, seriousness, disparities, vulnerable populations, the utility of population health strategies, and the importance of prevention at both the population and (...) individual levels. For many patients, treatment of pain is inadequate due to uncertain diagnoses, societal stigma, the lack of effective treatments, and inadequate patient and clinician knowledge about the best ways to manage pain. This article explores the inadequate treatment of pain in the U.S. and the subsequent rise of prescription painkiller abuse, misuse, and overdoses. This is followed by a review of the actions taken by states to regulate the prescribing of controlled substances. (shrink)

Bioethics has received important criticisms for its perceived privileging of biomedical authority with longstanding calls for greater recognition of the social, political, economic, historical, and...

States have implemented a variety of legal and policy approaches to address the overdose epidemic. Some approaches, like increasing access to naloxone and connecting overdose survivors with evidence-based treatment, have a strong public health foundation and a compelling evidence base. Others, like increasing reliance on punitive criminal justice approaches, have neither. This article examines law and policy changes that are likely to be effective in reducing overdose-related harm as well as those that are likely to increase it.

Marshall et al. (2024) persuasively argue that some patients with opiate use disorder (OUD), who refuse observation after naloxone resuscitation in the emergency department (ED), “may be making non...

Despite shifts in rhetoric and some positive movement, Americans with the disease of addiction are still often stigmatized, criminalized, and denied access to evidencebased care. Dramatically reducing the number of lives unnecessarily lost to overdose requires an evidence-based, equity-focused, well-funded, and coordinated response. We present in this brief article evidence-based and promising practices for improving and refocusing the response to this simmering public health crisis. Topics covered include improving clinical decision-making, improving access to non-judgmental evidence-based treatment, investing in comprehensive (...) public health approaches to problematic drug use, and changing the way law enforcement actors interact with people who use drugs. (shrink)

Marshall et al. (2024) identify a potential ethical conflict between the principles of beneficence and respect for patient autonomy when patients refuse to remain in an emergency department (ED) fo...

Harm reduction initiatives such as the distribution of naloxone have been crucial in saving lives during the opioid crisis in North America. Despite these efforts, today’s drug supply contaminated...

Opioid agonist treatment, including methadone, is the safest and most effective method for treating opioid use disorders and reduces opioid overdose deaths. While access to methadone is highly regulated by federal law, a substantial portion of states impose stricter barriers.

Pain policy is not drug policy. If society wants to improve the lives of people in pain and compress the terrible inequalities in its diagnosis and treatment, we have to tailor policy to the root causes driving our problems in treating pain humanely and equitably. In the United States, we do not. Instead, we have proceeded to conflate drug policy with pain policy, relying on arguably magical thinking for the conclusion that by addressing the drug overdose crisis, we are (...) simultaneously addressing the pain crisis. This is a category error, decades of commitment to which have resulted mostly in a worsening of both public health problems. Disentangling our problems in treating pain fairly and equitably from our problems with drugs and substance use is the only path to humane and ethical policy for each. (shrink)

A drug overdose epidemic in North America has sped the expansion of harm reduction services. Drawing on fieldwork in Ottawa, Ontario, we examine forms of care among people offering and accessing these resources. Notably, our interlocutors do not always characterize harm reduction as caring for oneself. Thus, we differentiate between the ethics of care through which one enters desired subject positions, and anethical careful practices. Harm reduction is sometimes anethical, enacted through minor gestures that do not constitute ethical work (...) but allow for its future realization. Une épidémie d’overdose de drogue en Amérique du Nord a accéléré l’expansion des services de réduction des risques. En s’appuyant sur un travail de terrain à Ottawa, Ontario, nous examinons les formes de souci et soin parmi les personnes qui fournissent ces ressources et qui y ont accès. Tout particulièrement, nos interlocuteurs ne caractérisent pas toujours la réduction des risques comme le souci de soi. Ainsi, nous faisons la différence entre l’éthique du souci de soi et des soins par laquelle on entre dans les positions de sujets souhaitées, et les pratiques soignantes anéthiques. La réduction des risques est parfois anéthique, mise en œuvre par des gestes mineurs qui ne constituent pas un travail éthique mais permettent sa réalisation future. (shrink)

While much of the social and political attention surrounding the nationwide opioid epidemic has focused on the dramatic increase in overdose deaths among white, middle-class, suburban and rural users, the impact of the epidemic in Black communities has largely been unrecognized. Though rates of opioid use at the national scale are higher for whites than they are for Blacks, rates of increase in opioid deaths have been rising more steeply among Blacks than whites over the last five years. Moreover, (...) the rate of opioid overdose deaths among Blacks already exceeds that of whites in several states. The lack of discussion of Black overdose deaths in the national opioid discourse further marginalizes Black people, and is highly consistent with a history of framing the addictions of people of color as deserving of criminal punishment, rather than worthy of medical treatment. This article argues that, because racial inequalities are embedded in American popular and political cultures as well as in medicine, the federal and state governments should develop more culturally targeted programs to benefit Black communities in the opioid crisis. Such programs include the use of faith-based organizations to deliver substance use prevention and treatment services, the inclusion of racial impact assessments in the implementation of drug policy proposals, and the formal consideration of Black people's interaction with the criminal justice system in designing treatment options. (shrink)

In the target article, “Revive and Refuse: Capacity, Autonomy, and Refusal of Care After Opioid Overdose,” Kenneth D. Marshall and collaborators (2024) highlight important complexities in the care...

Emergency declarations are a vital legal authority that can activate funds, personnel, and material and change the legal landscape to aid in the response to a public health threat. Traditionally, declarations have been used against immediate and unforeseen threats such as hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and pandemic influenza. Recently, however, states have used emergency declarations to address public health issues that have existed in communities for months and years and have risk factors such as poverty and substance misuse. Leaders in these (...) states have chosen to use emergency powers that are normally reserved for sudden catastrophes to address these enduring public health issues. This article will explore emergency declarations as a legal mechanism for response; describe recent declarations to address hepatitis A and the opioid overdose epidemic; and seek to answer the question of whether it is appropriate to use emergency powers to address public health issues that are not traditionally the basis for an emergency declaration. (shrink)

More than twenty-five years after the first signs of potential harm, the US remains locked in the grip of an opioid epidemic, with more Americans dying from overdoses than ever before.1 Diversion of prescription opioids plays an important role in opioid-related harms. Much of the scientific and public health focus on diversion has been on end-users, given how commonly non-medical prescription opioid use occurs, as well as the proportion of individuals who report that their source of non-medical opioids was friends (...) or family. However, diversion of opioids, as well as their rampant oversupply, can be discerned higher up the supply chain, including among wholesalers, pharmacies and rogue prescribers whose behavior may trigger well-described “flags” warranting further evaluation and action. (shrink)

I will present and criticise the two theories of truthmaking David Armstrong offers us in Truth and Truthmakers (Armstrong 2004), show to what extent they are incompatible and identify troublemakers for both of them, a notorious – Factualism, the view that the world is a world of states of affairs – and a more recent one – the view that every predication is necessary. Factualism, combined with truthmaker necessitarianism – ‘truthmaking is necessitation’ – leads Armstrong to an all-embracing totality state (...) of affairs that necessitates not only everything that is the case but also everything else – that which is not the case, that which is merely possible or even impossible. All the things so dear to realists – rocks, natural properties, real persons – become mere abstractions from this ontological monster. The view that every predication is necessary does in some sense the opposite: it does away with totality states of affairs and, arguably, also with states of affairs. We have particulars and universals, partially identical and necessarily connected to everything else. Just by the existence of anything, everything is necessitated – the whole world mirrored in every monad. Faced with the choice between these two equally unappealing alternatives, I suggest returning to Armstrong’s more empiricist past: the world is not an all-inclusive One, nor necessitated by every single particular and every single universal, but a plurality of particulars and universals, interconnected by a contingent and internal relation of exemplification. While a close variant, truthmaker essentialism, can perhaps be saved, this means giving up on truthmaker necessitarianism. This, I think, what it takes to steer a clear empiricist course between the Scylla of Spinozist general factness and the Charybdis of a Leibnizian overdose of brute necessities. (shrink)

According to Marshall et al. (2024), some of the patients who refuse to stay in observation after being resuscitated following an opioid overdose are likely not making an autonomous choice. While I do not intend to dispute this claim, it merits discussion what is the concept of autonomy at play in making this assessment. I contend that the concept at work is more substantive than Marshall et al. acknowledge—and more substantive, too, than the form of autonomy usually thought to (...) underpin the moral justification of the requirement of informed consent . (shrink)

In “Revive and Refuse,” Marshall et al. (2024) argue that many individuals who are revived from opioid overdoses have diminished decision-making capacity (DMC), given that so many of them have opio...

Amidst the climate of crisis surrounding the rise in opioid-related overdose in the USA, early in 2019, Google and Deloitte launched ‘Opioid360’. Here came a platform combining browser histories, credit, insurance, social media, and traditional survey data to sell the service of risk calculation in population health. Opioid360's approach to automating risk calculation not only promised to identify persons ‘at risk’ of opioid dependence, but also paved the way for broader applications anticipating common chronic diseases and coordinating logistical operations (...) involved in pandemic response. Beginning with this experimental platform, this paper develops an analysis of the Big Data mode of risk calculation - an epistemological and political shift that involves technology companies, investors, insurers, governments, and public health institutions. The analysis focuses on the re-emergence of ‘social determinants of health’ in the rhetoric accompanying novel analytic platforms that estimate, calculate, and compute individual health risks. While the treatment of SDOH has always been a site of political contestation within the discipline of public health, powerful interests are crystallising around the concept and instrumentalising it in platforms that sell algorithmic prediction. Silicon Valley's breed of asset-oriented technoscience appears not only to be amplifying the behaviouralist elements of public health. Among the stakes of the Big Data mode is the paradoxical retreat from changing social conditions that contribute to the prevalence of health and illness in populations; and instead, the promotion of an apparatus for pricing and exchanging individual risk or excluding from services those who bear risk most acutely. (shrink)

Since its inception in September 2010, the Network for Public Health Law has responded to hundreds of public health legal technical assistance claims from around the country. Based on a review of these data, a series of major trends in public health practice and the law are analyzed, including issues concerning: the Affordable Care Act, tobacco control, emergency legal preparedness, health information privacy, food policy, vaccination, drug overdose prevention, sports injury law, public health accreditation, and maternal breastfeeding. These and (...) other emerging themes in public health law demonstrate the essential role of law and practice in advancing the public's health. (shrink)

OBJECTIVE: This paper addresses the question of the circumstances which lead clinicians to use legal coercion in the management of patients with severe anorexia nervosa, and explores similarities and differences between such formal coercion and other forms of 'strong persuasion' in patient management. METHOD: Logistic regression and other statistical analysis was undertaken on 75 first admissions for anorexia nervosa from a sample of 117 successive admissions to an eating disorder facility in New South Wales, Australia, where an eating disorder was (...) the primary diagnosis. Admissions with other primary diagnoses, such as bulimia nervosa (25 episodes), and entries with a co morbid diagnosis (e.g. depression or opiate overdose), were discarded, leaving 96 admissions by 75 individuals. RESULTS: Resort to measures of legal coercion into treatment was found to be associated with three main indicators: the patient's past history (number of previous admissions); the complexity of their condition (the number of other psychiatric co morbidities); and their current health risk (measured either by Body Mass Index or the risk of re-feeding syndrome). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is consistent with the few earlier studies about indicators for legal coercion in anorexia nervosa management, and suggests that clinicians use legal coercion very sparingly, distinguishing legal coercion from other forms of close clinical management of patients. (shrink)

Despite the promise to save every life, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed social and racial inequalities, precarious living conditions, and engendered an exponential increase in overdose deaths. Although some lives are considered sacred, others are deliberately sacrificed. This article draws on the theoretical work of Foucault and scholars who further developed his concept of biopolitics. While biopolitics aims to ameliorate the health of populations, Foucault never systematically accounted for the unequal value of lives. In the name of saving the (...) biological lives of people who use drugs (PWUD) during the pandemic, the harm reduction movement has emphasized the need for safe supply, decriminalization, and housing; governments have started implementing these measures, which were previously rejected as utopian and unrealistic. Paradoxically, the use of drugs itself, and therefore the increased risk of death from overdose or other medical sequelae, is the only way PWUD can achieve enough visibility to be recognized as a life worth saving. The humanitarian rationale of harm reduction concerns itself with the biological life and stipulates social and political rights in the name of its sacredness. This is what anthropologist Fassin and others called biolegitimacy—the recognition of life reduced to its physiological, biological essence. (shrink)

A man of twenty‐two is admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU)after intentionally overdosing on Tylenol. The nurse asks the intensivist on call if someone from the local organ procurement organization should be called in to speak to the family, given a worsening clinical picture and the likelihood that the patient will progress to brain death. The patient's condition is such that multiple organs, including his heart and lungs, could be donated. The intensivist instructs the nurse not to call, as (...) he wishes to have an end‐of‐life discussion with the parents. He believes that the parents should know that death is imminent and that further interventions will not save their son. He argues that introducing the OPO at this point will cause the family more distress. He wants the parents to be able to give their son a peaceful death without additional stressors. What are the broader implications of not calling the OPO at this juncture? Does the nurse involved have an ethical obligation to override the intensivist's instructions by calling the OPO? Should the fact that multiple healthy organs could be harvested from this patient's body have any bearing on the decision to call the OPO? (shrink)

Dr. James Graves was convicted of manslaughter, racketeering, and drug charges in association with overdose deaths of four of his patients from the painkiller OxyContin. A Florida court then sentenced the physician to 62.9 years in prison. This is the first criminal conviction of a doctor in the United States related to OxyContin deaths.Dr. Graves, who ran a pain management office, was charged with recklessly writing prescriptions to those that could afford an office visit and failed to ask appropriate (...) questions beforehand. Prosecutors in the case said that the physician prescribed drugs like OxyContin to as many as ninety patients a day, after only a short office visit. The prosecution claimed that Graves was “‘selling prescriptions for cash without any real examination, diagnostic testing, or follow-up, no consultation, no real assessment of their medical needs.’”. (shrink)

It is widely accepted in clinical ethics that removing a patient from a ventilator at the patient’s request is ethically permissible. This constitutes voluntary passive euthanasia. However, voluntary active euthanasia, such as giving a patient a lethal overdose with the intention of ending that patient’s life, is ethically proscribed, as is assisted suicide, such as providing a patient with lethal pills or a lethal infusion. Proponents of voluntary active euthanasia and assisted suicide have argued that the distinction between killing (...) and letting die is flawed and that there is no real difference between actively ending someone’s life and "merely" allowing them to die. This paper shows that, although this view is correct, there is even less of a distinction than is commonly acknowledged in the literature. It does so by suggesting a new perspective that more accurately reflects the moral features of end-of-life situations: if a patient is mentally competent and wants to die, his body itself constitutes unwarranted life support unfairly prolonging his or her mental life. (shrink)

Deaths of Despair (DoD), or mortality resulting from suicide, drug overdose, and alcohol-related liver disease, have been rising steadily in the United States over the last several decades. In 2020, a record 186,763 annual despair-related deaths were documented, contributing to the longest sustained decline in US life expectancy since 1915–1918. This forum feature considers how health humanities disciplines might fruitfully engage with this era-defining public health catastrophe and help society better understand and respond to the crisis.

In this paper, we claim that we can only seek to eradicate the stigma associated with the contemporary opioid overdose epidemic when we understand how opioid stigma and the epidemic have co-evolved. Rather than conceptualizing stigma as a parallel social process alongside the epidemiologically and physiologically defined harms of the epidemic, we argue that the stigmatized history of opioids and their use defines the epidemic. We conclude by offering recommendations for disrupting the burden of opioid stigma.

This manuscript describes the institutional and clinical considerations that apply to the question of whether to mandate opioid dose reduction in patients who have received opioids long-term. It describes how a calamitous rise in addiction and overdose involving opioids has both led to a clinical recalibration by healthcare providers, and to strong incentives favoring forcible opioid reduction by policy making agencies. Neither the 2016 Guideline issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor clinical evidence can justify or (...) promote such policies as safe or effective. (shrink)

It has recently been suggested by Shaw (2007) that the distinction between voluntary active euthanasia, such as giving a patient a lethal overdose with the intention of ending that patient's life, and voluntary passive euthanasia, such as removing a patient from a ventilator, is much less obvious than is commonly acknowledged in the literature. This is argued by suggesting a new perspective that more accurately reflects the moral features of end-of-life situations. The argument is simply that if we consider (...) the body of a mentally competent patient who wants to die, a kind of ‘unwarranted’ life support, then the distinction collapses. We argue that all Shaw has provided is a perspective that makes the conclusion that there is little distinction between voluntary active euthanasia and voluntary passive euthanasia only seemingly more palatable. In doing so he has yet to convince us that this perspective is superior to other perspectives and thus more accurately reflects the moral features of the situations pertaining to this issue. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:It's Not Always Just a RashAdam BossertI looked at the emergency department track board and saw a patient waiting for a provider who was "roomed" in a hallway stretcher with a chief complaint of a rash. I briefly considered his ultimate disposition, "He's probably fine. He can't be that sick if he was triaged as safe for the hallway." I was tired and close to the end of an (...) overnight shift and thought he would be a quick turnaround, likely discharged, since rashes are typically benign. I walked over to his stretcher after a quick chart biopsy that highlighted his mildly increased heart [End Page 24] rate on arrival as well as his history of polysubstance use and homelessness."Hey doc, I don't feel so good.""I'm sorry to hear that. What's specifically bothering you?""I am itching all over with these bumps. My skin is red, and I also think I'm withdrawing since I have body aches and chills."The interview continued.I discovered his last heroin use was approximately eight hours prior to arrival. I thought he was an ideal candidate for buprenorphine since he was actively withdrawing. I was recently licensed to prescribe this medication and excited to use my license for the first time. He declined the suggestion, however, preferring methadone instead. Buprenorphine can precipitate withdrawal if not given long enough after opioid use or if an incorrect dose is given; thus, many patients are hesitant to take it. He also stated he was predominantly here for his rash and did not want rehabilitation placement. I ordered our initiation methadone dose as well as a screening COVID-19 test and a urine drug screen test, which are both needed for rehabilitation placement in case he changed his mind.His rash was highly suspicious for scabies. He was covered with red bumps that spared only his face, some in linear distributions, and was actively scratching his arms and legs during the interview. I prefer oral ivermectin over topical permethrin for the homeless population simply for ease of administration, lower cost, and increased compliance. He received ivermectin for his scabies and knew he could return to the emergency department for a repeat dose if he was unable to fill a prescription.What happened next is, in my experience, an all-too-common scenario.The patient told me that the methadone is "doing nothing." I explained he could no longer take buprenorphine since he already received methadone, which only made him more frustrated. Unfortunately, I am restricted with the amount of methadone I can give in the emergency department, largely due to the drug's long half-life, and thus I was unable to give him more, let alone attempt titrating to his tolerance.Opioid withdrawal is not a life-threatening diagnosis; these patients are not typically admitted to the hospital. The management consists of initiating either methadone or buprenorphine, symptomatic treatment and then outpatient referral or rehabilitation placement. I explained the options to him, and he requested to be discharged since he was deferring rehabilitation. He was discharged. I was able to treat his rash but his chronic illness, opioid use disorder, was not controlled.I discharge a patient in opioid withdrawal or who has opioid use disorder almost every day, and I think most emergency medicine physicians would echo that statement. The disposition is not wrong from the perspective of the individual physician, but it feels like the system has failed these patients when I think of the frequency that they return and their baffling risk of overdose. The latter can be reduced by giving patients Narcan, the drug to reverse opioid overdose, upon discharge but this is just placing a bandage over the problem and not all emergency departments can fund this risk-reduction tool.I saw my patient's COVID-19 result return as I wrapped up my shift. It was positive. And, of course, he was in our department's hallway the whole time, only intermittently using his mask. I suddenly realized that while yes, he was withdrawing, he also may have had a symptomatic COVID-19 infection! I quickly reopened his chart, only to... (shrink)

The national opioid epidemic is severely impacting Indian Country. In this article, we draw upon data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to describe the contours of this crisis among Native Americans. While these data are subject to significant limitations, we show that Native American opioid overdose mortality rates have grown substantially over the last seventeen years. We further find that this increase appears to at least parallel increases seen among non-Hispanic whites, who are often thought to (...) be uniquely affected by this crisis. We then profile tribal medical and legal responses to the opioid epidemic, ranging from tribally-operated medication-assisted therapy to drug diversion courts rooted in traditional tribal cultures. (shrink)

Those researching HIV prevention measures for people who inject drugs face a dilemma. Regions where baseline HIV prevalence and onward transmission via injecting is sufficiently high to power HIV prevention trials are also those where repressive laws, policies and practices raise concerns about the ethics of research subject protection. Dawson et al, outlining criteria to address ethical challenges in HIV prevention research among PWID, recommend that all trial participants be offered sterile injecting equipment and urge additional strategies to limit research (...) and background risks.1 In light of ethical questions opened by recent clinical trials involving PWID, including several the authors cite favourably, these cautions are timely. Dawson et al urge weighing of costs and benefits of PWID participation in research trials as an essential part of the ethical calculus. Overdose is a particular risk in any trial that uses abstinence from opioids as a precondition for participation or as an outcome of interest, and a risk that institutional review boards and researchers frequently ignore. Given the increased likelihood of fatal overdose for those who return to injection following a period of abstinence, provision to all trial participants of naloxone—the overdose antidote …. (shrink)

Many of the original Saturday Night Live (SNL) cast and writers believed that cocaine was non‐addictive and that it was a logical drug to use to sustain the long hours of intense preparation necessary for a weekly live show. It's no secret that drugs and alcohol have been fuel for some SNL cast members. In the early days, the culture and writing of SNL were fueled by drugs, particularly cocaine and marijuana. So John Belushi's drug use was not at all (...) unique, and it justified his belief that people in the entertainment business needed to do drugs to cope with pressure and stress. Sadly, though, John and Chris Farley both lost their lives to overdoses at the young age of 33. Although Stuart Smalley pokes fun at the Pollyanna tone of recovery gurus, Al Franken himself has been a great advocate for the kind of twelve‐step programs that Chris Farley succeeded with for a time. (shrink)

v. Savigny's commentary is a remarkable achievement and essential reading for all scholars of the Investigations. It brings to the exegetical enterprise something new and important — the challenge of an immanent approach and the tool of German philology. However, some of the potential gains may be lost by his leitmotiv of a tight master-scheme. In my view this ‘central theses’ scheme presses Wittgenstein's multifaceted masterpiece into an unsuitable Procrustean bed and tends to impoverish v. Savigny's account. Nevertheless there remains (...) the palatable pattern-recipe (for me partly spoiled by an overdose of community-views). Most importantly, v. Savigny approaches most of the material in an innovative and illuminating way. He provides good reasons for questioning, although not necessarily overturning, many key claims of recent scholarship. (shrink)