Governor Blocks Access to Lifesaving Drug For Heroin Addicts

[Mr Person]

I have to agree with this. by having to go to the doctor or hospital they can get counseling on their drug issues and can be at least offered
help. .

Oh, I see the source of confusion!

Just in: Doctors and hospitals cannot counsel dead people on drug issues.

But they can counsel the ones that don't die. Compare that with the doctors never being able to counsel anyone because they no longer have to go in for a prescription....I think I'd rather them be able to save the ones that they can than not be able to try and save anyone at all because they think they no longer have need of the doctor. Consider it Triage.

I'm not talking about the ones that don't die.

I'm talking about the ones that will die that didn't have to die, but for this policy. The fact that some might luck out anyway and talk to a doctor does not in any way logically justify a policy that pointlessly lets others die in order to teach addicts writ large a moral lesson.

In fact, it is self-contradictory in the extreme, because you actually have no evidence that someone saved by a medication will always make the decision to go back to drugs because they were saved. Not all addicts are Nikki Sixx. Some are like Slash or Duff McKagan, and actually DO sober up after nearly dying. (In fact, I'm fairly sure even Sixx sobered up eventually. And he was saved at least once. How about that?)

The cold-hearted policy you defend denies them that choice, all in the name of teaching some grand moral lesson to addicts in general, who aren't listening to your moral lesson anyway because they're addicts. Or dead.

 

[ludin]

Oh, I see the source of confusion!



Just in: Doctors and hospitals cannot counsel dead people on drug issues.

so you are very much confused aren't you.

 

[ludin]

I'm not talking about the ones that don't die.

I'm talking about the ones that will die that didn't have to die, but for this policy. The fact that some might luck out anyway and talk to a doctor does not in any way logically justify a policy that pointlessly lets others die in order to teach addicts writ large a moral lesson.

they were going to die anyway. as more than likely they couldn't afford the shot. nor does it say that they could even use it before the OD killed them.

In fact, it is self-contradictory in the extreme, because you actually have no evidence that someone saved by a medication will always make the decision to go back to drugs because they were saved. Not all addicts are Nikki Sixx. Some are like Slash or Duff McKagan, and actually DO sober up after nearly dying. (In fact, I'm fairly sure even Sixx sobered up eventually. And he was saved at least once. How about that?)

those people had professional help and rehab.

The cold-hearted policy you defend denies them that choice, all in the name of teaching some grand moral lesson to addicts in general, who aren't listening to your moral lesson anyway because they're addicts. Or dead.

nope no cold hearted policy at all. what you propose and others is called enabling.

 

[ocean515]

Another blatant falsehood masquerading as "tough love".



"Enabling" means, for example, making alcohol available to an alcoholic, inviting the alcoholic out for drinks and encouraging them to have another, or at the very least, doing nothing to convince them they have a problem while tolerating their boozing in their presence.

We're not talking about anything like that here.



The accurate analogy would be that preventing medication from being made available to addicts suffering from ODs = leaving an alcoholic who is lying on his back vomiting to choke to death rather than turn him to his side.

Letting people die when you could save them is not some brave "tough decision" made to fight addiction.

I have already stated that these rescue drugs should be available. My comments were inspired by a claim the governor had no socially redeeming qualities as a result of his action.

If an addict OD's and dies, that is their doing, and not the fault of a lack of a rescue drug. That is no different than letting a alcoholic aspirate their vomit and die. It's not the fault of the bystander, but the result of the alcoholics action.

Would I intervene, seek a rescue drug if immediately available, or turn the puking alcoholic on their side? Absolutely.

The blatant falsehood here is your interpretation of enabling.

 

[ocean515]

Well, you're saying it is, but the fact remains that refusing to make a treatment for OD available is absolutely nothing like the sort of "enabling" that is discussed in the literature regarding addiction. Given the thread of posts you respond to above, you are taking the position that the only way to avoid enabling an addict is to consciously allow them to die when you could have prevented it with a simple policy. I find that absurd, cold-hearted, and indicative of a rather profound lack of knowledge about what addiction is.

And, as I noted, it reflects a complete denial about actual history: addicts have been addicts since the dawn of time, and they have died as addicts where there was no treatment available.

I also find this last remark to be absurd because there are about 9,999 reasons to quit an addiction other than fatal overdose. It does tend to ruin one's life in just about every way imaginable.

The only thing this policy accomplishes is to ensure that overdoses are more likely to produce death than they have to be. It is exactly as I described it to be.

People are dying from overdose when there is more help for them than at any other time in human history. Your premise is flawed.

 

[Socrates1]

Governor Blocks Access To Lifesaving Drug For Heroin Addicts | ThinkProgress
Governor Blocks Access to Lifesaving Drug For Heroin Addicts

Maine Governor Paul LePage (R) vetoed a bill Wednesday that could save the lives of hundreds of people struggling with drug abuse in the state. The bill would have allowed pharmacists to dispense naloxone — the drug that once injected, reverses opioid overdoses — to anyone who may be at risk of overdosing, or someone close to them who could administer it in an emergency.

LePage said that making naloxone more accessible would only “perpetuate the cycle of addiction” in Maine, a state at the epicenter of the opioid crisis. Thirty-five states and Washington, D.C. have passed laws allowing prescription-free naloxone, which is known on pharmacy shelves as Narcan — and major pharmacy chains, like Walgreens and CVS, have openly welcomed the move. While Maine already allows people to access naloxone if they have a prescription, these new laws cut out unnecessary time and money spent obtaining a doctor’s note.

“Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose,” LePage wrote in his veto letter, according to the Portland Herald. “Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.”

Injecting someone with naloxone who is overdosing from heroin or another opioid can save their life. Members of the state legislature — along with many other critics — say LePage’s veto is a direct disregard to citizens’ lives…………..


This a person without any socially redeeming qualities……………Where did you folks in Maine find this guy?............in the woods?

Sounds like he is saving taxpayers billions of dollars ! :happy:

 

[Rogue Valley]

In the Russian Federation, drugs such as Methodone which are prescribed for opiate substitution therapy (OST) are banned. Also banned are measures for preventing HIV and Hepatitis C among its drug using population and needle-exchange programs. The Russian Federation has extremely repressive drug laws and its punitive approach to people who use drugs means that it now experiences one of the highest rates of new HIV infections in the world. Injecting drug users represent nearly 80% of all HIV cases in the country. Having no OST programs/drugs available also leads to increased criminality because there exits no viable alternative to an ever-increasing opiate dependence.

Sex, syringes and the HIV epidemic Russia can no longer ignore

 

[Helix]

i've already responded to this thread, but i just wanted to respond one more time so that i could personally attack Governor Asshole ****head. may you have all of the help that you need when you're dying, even though you are trying to deny it to others, you social Darwinist ****.

ah, now i feel a bit better.

 

[danarhea]

LePage is correct. All this does is perpetuate the drug use. It's a way for drug companies to make more money. Drug companies don't want to cure anything. If they did then they'd be out of business. Seriously, when was the last time a drug company actually came out with a cure?

What LePage is trying to do from the sounds of it is to force people into talking to a doctor so that maybe the doctor can convince them to try and kick the drug habit. That will save more lives in the long run than this drug ever will.

I heartily disagree with you on this because of my own experience as an addict. True, I haven't done drugs in almost 31 years now, but I am still an addict, and will continue to be one until they day they lay me in the ground. In 1969, I did overdose on heroin, and it was a close call. I could have died. If I had died, I never would have had a chance to eventually recover and become a normal member of my community. What LePage is saying to me is this - "**** you. You don't count". For me, this is personal, because I DO count, and after recovering, I feel that I have made some wonderful contributions to my community. True, nobody put a gun to my head and told me to become an addict. That is all on me. But giving up on addicts and telling them they can just go die because they are worthless is a relic of the kind of barbarism that is mutually exclusive to the concept of being an American.

That's all I have to say on the matter. I AM somebody, and I have nothing to prove to assholes like LePage, or anybody else for that matter.

 

[CanadaJohn]

This issue, and issues similar to it, trouble me because I see our societies moving close to rationalizing and legalizing all kinds of harmful drugs and also accommodating those with subsequent addictions they may never have suffered had we been better at preventing them in the first place.

Here in Toronto, the Department of Health is recommending that several safe injection sites be established so that medical practitioners can monitor and assist those who bring illegal drugs into these clinics. They'll be provided with clean needles and other assistance and monitored to reduce the risk of overdose. Part of me is appalled that a government agency sworn to protecting the health and wellbeing of citizens would, in effect, facilitate dangerous use of such drugs but the health department claims the clinics will save dozens of lives each year. But what kind of lives are they saving? What kind of life is it to be primarily living on the streets and begging and stealing to buy drugs that take away the painful reality of a life wasting away?

This issue in Maine seems similar to me. I won't condemn the Governor for doing what he feels is right in this situation. I have no idea what the right answer is. But I, for one, can't easily condone making it easier for a person to overdose and recover as if there's nothing incredible ****ed up about the whole situation.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'd just add, to my note above, that I just read an article that indicates that an increase in drug overdoses has actually led to an increase in organ donations.

Make of that whatever you will.

 

[Mr Person]

Well, you're saying it is, but the fact remains that refusing to make a treatment for OD available is absolutely nothing like the sort of "enabling" that is discussed in the literature regarding addiction. Given the thread of posts you respond to above, you are taking the position that the only way to avoid enabling an addict is to consciously allow them to die when you could have prevented it with a simple policy. I find that absurd, cold-hearted, and indicative of a rather profound lack of knowledge about what addiction is.

And, as I noted, it reflects a complete denial about actual history: addicts have been addicts since the dawn of time, and they have died as addicts where there was no treatment available.

I also find this last remark to be absurd because there are about 9,999 reasons to quit an addiction other than fatal overdose. It does tend to ruin one's life in just about every way imaginable.

The only thing this policy accomplishes is to ensure that overdoses are more likely to produce death than they have to be. It is exactly as I described it to be.

People are dying from overdose when there is more help for them than at any other time in human history. Your premise is flawed.

Did you miss the part that made clear that the subject of the thread is about a governor trying to make LESS HELP available for "people [who] are dying form overdose"?

 

[iacardsfan]

Nothing like reversing the need for a certain substance by taking a different substance into your body! At the same time, the government making laws against putting things into your body is foolish, and I thought I liked Maine

 

[Somerville]

Please note the vote count on rejecting LePage's veto of the Naxolone bill

Legislature overrides 20 of LePage’s 33 vetoes on final day

The (Maine) House and Senate went against LePage on a bill that would increase access to Naloxone, a lifesaving antidote to opioid overdoses that LePage opposed because he said it is being overused and allows addicts to prolong their addictions without seeking treatment. LePage has been under intense national pressure regarding the bill since his veto, particularly for saying Naloxone doesn’t save lives, but only prolongs them until the next overdose.

Despite all the controversy, the bill had an easy time to enactment on Friday, with a 29-5 vote in the Senate and a 132-14 vote in the House.

 

[ocean515]

Did you miss the part that made clear that the subject of the thread is about a governor trying to make LESS HELP available for "people [who] are dying form overdose"?

Maybe you missed the point that in fact, there is more help for addicts and alcoholics than at any other time in human history.

Perhaps you also missed the claim in the OP that the Governor had no socially redeeming qualities as a result of his action. How does that even equate? No socially redeeming qualities because addicts won't get a bail out at taxpayer expense? Who is lacking in socially redeeming qualities? The person who won't bail someone out, or the one who demands they get bailed out?

Perhaps you also missed the reality that an addict, or an alcoholic, will feed their addiction as much as they possibly can every time. If they know they have an out if they overdue it, where does it stop?

 

[jmotivator]

While Maine already allows people to access naloxone if they have a prescription, these new laws cut out unnecessary time and money spent obtaining a doctor’s note.

Hidden in that blurb is the admission above that the bull crap headline is demonstrably-false fear mongering.

 

[jmotivator]

Did you miss the part that made clear that the subject of the thread is about a governor trying to make LESS HELP available for "people [who] are dying form overdose"?

Complete and absolute BS. The bill would only remove the prescription requirement for the drug. People still had access to the drug through a doctor's prescription...

But yeah, why would you want to force heroin addict to see a doctor? :roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Addict OD's, no drug to halt it. He dies, pretty simple.

The authoritarian social conservatives would just assume stone to death drug addicts, but since they can't, this is the next best thing.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Complete and absolute BS. The bill would only remove the prescription requirement for the drug. People still had access to the drug through a doctor's prescription...

But yeah, why would you want to force heroin addict to see a doctor? :roll:

Yes, heroine addicts are all insured, have a primary care physician, and see them regularly....

When someone is addicted to hard drugs, they are going to use them until they make the commitment to stop and to get help stopping. A heroine addict is not going to say "Well since I can't get naloxone, I better quit the heroine". Similarly, no one says "Hey now that I can get naloxone from a pharmacist, I am going to take up heroine." The same is true when it comes to access to clean syringes without a prescription. If they can get clean syringes they are likely to use them, otherwise they will just reuse the ones they have no matter how dull they are or no matter who else used them because either way, until they get off the narcotics, they are going to get their fix.

Put yourself in the place of a parent that God forbid had a kid strung out on heroine. You are doing everything you can to get your kid to go into rehab, but for now they are not doing. So you are praying everyday that they won't overdose and will live long enough to decide to get clean one day. You sure as hell can't get your drug addicted kid to go to the doctor. So you for the time being, the availability of a drug like noloxone can be a godsend for you as a parent of such a kid and you can bet you would have it around and make sure your kid had it to until you could get them into rehab.

As a parent I cannot imagine the horror of having a kid that was addicted to heroine. Why on earth does it make any sense at all to make a potentially life saving drug for a heroine addict hard to get at all? It is literally as though the authoritarian right figures they can't stone an addict to death so this is the next best thing.

 

[jmotivator]

Yes, heroine addicts are all insured, have a primary care physician, and see them regularly....

Isn't that what Obamacare did? How about we just get rid of doctors all together and let everyone self medicate? :roll:

When someone is addicted to hard drugs, they are going to use them until they make the commitment to stop and to get help stopping. A heroine addict is not going to say "Well since I can't get naloxone, I better quit the heroine". Similarly, no one says "Hey now that I can get naloxone from a pharmacist, I am going to take up heroine." The same is true when it comes to access to clean syringes without a prescription. If they can get clean syringes they are likely to use them, otherwise they will just reuse the ones they have no matter how dull they are or no matter who else used them because either way, until they get off the narcotics, they are going to get their fix.

I don't think you realize how self defeating your argument is. Naloxone as a detox drug would likely be administered on someone who actually cares to get better, and would be more likely to seek help from a doctor. Naloxone as an anti-OD medication would likely not be purchased by the patient as they rarely believe they are in danger of ODing, or ODed on purpose.

No matter how you look at it, Naloxone will almost always be administered by a physician or EMT, and in the rare case where a heroin addict thinks ahead (and how many do?) it's not like they wouldn't have access to heroin and not naloxone....

Put yourself in the place of a parent that God forbid had a kid strung out on heroine. You are doing everything you can to get your kid to go into rehab, but for now they are not doing. So you are praying everyday that they won't overdose and will live long enough to decide to get clean one day. You sure as hell can't get your drug addicted kid to go to the doctor. So you for the time being, the availability of a drug like noloxone can be a godsend for you as a parent of such a kid and you can bet you would have it around and make sure your kid had it to until you could get them into rehab.

As a parent of such a kid I would talk to my doctor and get a prescription for my child.

As a parent I cannot imagine the horror of having a kid that was addicted to heroine. Why on earth does it make any sense at all to make a potentially life saving drug for a heroine addict hard to get at all? It is literally as though the authoritarian right figures they can't stone an addict to death so this is the next best thing.

Spare me the emotional BS. Use of Naloxone can have severe and life threatening effects in opioid dependent patients, and has an overdose risk itself therefore it should be used with the consultation of a doctor.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Isn't that what Obamacare did? How about we just get rid of doctors all together and let everyone self medicate? :roll:

One of the rolls of the FDA is to determine which drugs are suitable for over the counter use and which drugs should require a prescription.

I don't think you realize how self defeating your argument is. Naloxone as a detox drug would likely be administered on someone who actually cares to get better, and would be more likely to seek help from a doctor. Naloxone as an anti-OD medication would likely not be purchased by the patient as they rarely believe they are in danger of ODing, or ODed on purpose.

You obviously have never known any heroine addicts. Most them do in fact worry about overdosing.

No matter how you look at it, Naloxone will almost always be administered by a physician or EMT, and in the rare case where a heroin addict thinks ahead (and how many do?) it's not like they wouldn't have access to heroin and not naloxone....

Community based programs that distribute naloxone without a prescription to heroine addicts have prevented over 10,000 deaths.

Community-Based Opioid Overdose Prevention Programs Providing Naloxone ? United States, 2010

As a parent of such a kid I would talk to my doctor and get a prescription for my child.

A lot of doctors will not prescribe drugs for family members not seen by that doctor.

Spare me the emotional BS. Use of Naloxone can have severe and life threatening effects in opioid dependent patients, and has an overdose risk itself therefore it should be used with the consultation of a doctor.

Yet the CDC still recommends that Naloxone be available to be dispensed by pharmacies and other community based programs because despite the side effects, it has saved thousands of lives.

 

[jmotivator]

One of the rolls of the FDA is to determine which drugs are suitable for over the counter use and which drugs should require a prescription.

And what is the FDA decision on Naloxone. Did they deem it safe for OTC distribution or did they determine it needed to be a controlled substance?

You obviously have never known any heroine addicts. Most them do in fact worry about overdosing.

I was a social worker for 8 years. I guarantee I have known more than you have.

Community based programs that distribute naloxone without a prescription to heroine addicts have prevented over 10,000 deaths.

Community-Based Opioid Overdose Prevention Programs Providing Naloxone ? United States, 2010

First, I never said the drug wasn't effective, so 10,000 saves out of 50,000 doses (assuming the self claims are accurate) doesn't alter my point.

Second, those programs require a prescription and training before distribution. Some of those programs are administered by nurse practitioners, others by volunteer physicians, but they all were connected to a prescription. So while this does nothing to change my point, it sure blows the crap out of your emotional claim that heroin addicts don't seek physicians help, and were without helathcare. Those who wanted Narcan knew to go to those clinics!

A lot of doctors will not prescribe drugs for family members not seen by that doctor.

And? I guess the rest go to clinics...

Yet the CDC still recommends that Naloxone be available to be dispensed by pharmacies and other community based programs because despite the side effects, it has saved thousands of lives.

BY PRESCRIPTION! Yes it has dangerous side effects if misused... that is one of the primary reasons why the FDA chooses to control the distribution of a drug like Naloxone!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And what is the FDA decision on Naloxone. Did they deem it safe for OTC distribution or did they determine it needed to be a controlled substance?



I was a social worker for 8 years. I guarantee I have known more than you have.



First, I never said the drug wasn't effective, so 10,000 saves out of 50,000 doses (assuming the self claims are accurate) doesn't alter my point.

Second, those programs require a prescription and training before distribution. Some of those programs are administered by nurse practitioners, others by volunteer physicians, but they all were connected to a prescription. So while this does nothing to change my point, it sure blows the crap out of your emotional claim that heroin addicts don't seek physicians help, and were without helathcare. Those who wanted Narcan knew to go to those clinics!

He threatened to veto a bill that would allow emergency responders, pharmacists, community programs specializing in drug abuse, police and so on from distributing the drug without prescription. That is the point. Its not just a drug addict that could have gone to the pharmacist to get it, the fireman that showed up on the scene prior to the EMTs would not have been able to dispense the drug either. I don't get why you would defend him other than for the fact he has an R after his name and thus its the hack thing to do.

And? I guess the rest go to clinics...



BY PRESCRIPTION! Yes it has dangerous side effects if misused... that is one of the primary reasons why the FDA chooses to control the distribution of a drug like Naloxone!

The CDC recommends what the bill proposed. That it be available to be dispensed by pharmacists, emergency responders, and community programs specializing in drug abuse - all without a prescription.

It is all neither here nor there because even his own party was not supporting his decision and he want back on his threat to veto the bill. It was passed on the 29th of April. It seems that on a total partisan hack would agree or defend him on this.

 

[JANFU]

The authoritarian social conservatives would just assume stone to death drug addicts, but since they can't, this is the next best thing.

Those are the minority, Thank God.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Those are the minority, Thank God.

Yes but the problem is they show up in majorities for midterm and off-year elections.