Narcan - feeding the problem? Or part of the solution?

[Tamster859]

Here in NH, It was recently found that we have the worst heroin problem in the entire US... The solution for many seems to be a "counter drug" call Narcan. Easily administered by anyone who can get their hands on it.

As I understand it, it is kind of like an "epi-pen". Quick injection and the almost dead individual bounces back (in many cases, literally bounces up and takes off) once given this drug. It does nothing to cure them of this addiction or help them in any way to get this "monkey" off their backs.

My questions are many, but will start with this... Do you think Narcan is a crutch or a solution to the heroin problem? Does society have a moral obligation to help these people get over the addiction?

Please note, the obvious answer, get the drug off the street, but that isn't the point of this conversation.

Thoughts?

[Spiral Out]

There's a fine line between helping and enabling. I believe Narcan goes beyond helping to basic enabling. All it does is perpetuate the problem. It's simply a safety net for addicts.

[Scribbler60]

If you value human life, then you must value harm reduction.

That's what Narcan does. It reduces harm to make it possible for the person to be alive to get treatment.

Without it, some addicts will die.

With it, some addicts will remain alive and get treatment.

Choose wisely.

[Tamster859]

scribbler60.

Interesting observation. But why would the addict get help if he/she knows that there is a quick fix to their near death experience in every cop car/ambulance/friends back pocket?

What is the motivation to kick the addiction?

In the news this morning one of the local high schools was approved to start stocking it. Isn't that sending the wrong message??

[Tamster859]

SpiralOut,

So if you view it as a safety net for addicts, what responsibility does a city have to their addicts? Should they continue to put money into this "safety net" or should they put money into rehab houses? Or money into getting it off the street? You could have a day long discussion just on supply and demand....

[Scribbler60]

scribbler60.

Interesting observation. But why would the addict get help if he/she knows that there is a quick fix to their near death experience in every cop car/ambulance/friends back pocket?

What is the motivation to kick the addiction?

Because most people don't want to die.

In the news this morning one of the local high schools was approved to start stocking it. Isn't that sending the wrong message??

I'm not familiar with that particular news item, but rather than sending the wrong message, I think it's sending the right message: We'd prefer you not use heroin, but even if you do, your life is valued and we don't want you to die.

It's no different than the Catholic church discouraging condom use. "AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse." I don't think any rational person believes that makes any sense.

[Wilson]

Nobody thinks Narcan will help solve the narcotics problem. And the reason addicts don't assume it will save them when they overdose is that in most circumstances there's not someone close enough to have it on hand and administer it. It neither exacerbates nor alleviates the drug problem.

[Spiral Out]

So if you view it as a safety net for addicts, what responsibility does a city have to their addicts?

None whatsoever. I wouldn't phrase it as "their addicts".

Should they continue to put money into this "safety net" or should they put money into rehab houses? Or money into getting it off the street?

None of the above. Use that money for veterans, the elderly and mental health.

>>>

Because most people don't want to die.

Then they shouldn't be shooting heroin. It's a choice.

I'm not familiar with that particular news item, but rather than sending the wrong message, I think it's sending the right message: We'd prefer you not use heroin, but even if you do, your life is valued and we don't want you to die.

You're not helping, you're enabling.

It's no different than the Catholic church discouraging condom use. "AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse." I don't think any rational person believes that makes any sense.

The major difference is that condom use is smart, because it's a proactive responsible preventive measure, unlike Narcan which is a reactive irresponsible enabling tool.

[Scribbler60]

You're not helping, you're enabling... The major difference is that condom use is smart, because it's a proactive responsible preventive measure, unlike Narcan which is a reactive irresponsible enabling tool.

You're just spouting opinions.

What evidence do you have that Narcan is just an enabler? I'm open to evidence and if it's compelling I'm the first one to change my mind. But evidence - rational, cogent, unbiased (as much as possible, anyway) evidence - is required first.

[Spiral Out]

But evidence - rational, cogent, unbiased (as much as possible, anyway) evidence - is required first.

When the mind of an addict is rational, cogent, unbiased and evidence-based then you may have a point. Otherwise, your opinion is just as tenuous as any other.

Time will prove it out that Narcan is a bad idea.

[Scribbler60]

But evidence - rational, cogent, unbiased (as much as possible, anyway) evidence - is required first.

When the mind of an addict is rational, cogent, unbiased and evidence-based then you may have a point. Otherwise, your opinion is just as tenuous as any other.

Time will prove it out that Narcan is a bad idea.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the mind of an addict is rational. I'm looking for evidence in peer-reviewed publications in medical or addiction journals that shows, conclusively, that treatments such as Narcan and similar do not help in curbing addiction. You've made the claim that Narcan is an enabler. Let's see your data. If you have none, then just say so.

[Spiral Out]

If you're the type of person who requires scientific evidence, peer-reviewed publications and empirical data in order to understand any given concept, condition or consequence then I would think there is quite an obstacle to such a person's grasp of an obvious hazard.

I'm also a skeptic, however, I don't require others to think for me, and I don't need a inclinometer to know when I'm upside down.

[Tamster859]

Regarding Narcan as being an enabler without "solid" scientific fact.

On the news you see/hear many people say they were saved because of Narcan. They were able to then get up the next day, go on looking for another hit.

Isn't that the definition of enabling? You aren't helping to fix the problem, you are merely allowing them to get another hit, test their odds again. And each time they are "saved" nothing is done to treat or help.

I can't post a link here, but if you google wmur tv in Manchester, NH you will see an entire section just on the topic of heroin addiction. It's scary.

[Scribbler60]

My default philosophy on this is simple: One cannot treat dead people. If Narcan keeps people from dying from an overdose, then they have the potential to be treated. But if Narcan (or whatever harm reduction strategy is in place) is unavailable and the patient dies, there's no chance of helping them.

Is it a panacea? Of course not. But unless there's peer-reviewed evidence that shows that Narcan is an enabler (proper evidence, not a news report or a politicized opinion), then I think that a default philosophy of saving lives is the correct one.

[Spiral Out]

What's wrong with letting them die? They chose that path. Drug abuse/addiction is the consequence of the choice to use drugs in the first place. It costs everyone else time, money and other valuable resources that are certainly better spent on other far more noble causes.