Diversion

[Aprz]

I know they outted him, but for the majority of people, I don't think they know him, so it doesn't add to the conversation. For the few of us who do know him, it is kind of just a "fun fact" (I say that with sarcasm) that we now know about him, maybe shocked, but it isn't anything we haven't seen before. I personally wouldn't have posted his name here. They made the information public, but you helped to make sure his friends see it here. If it weren't for you, a lot of us probably would never know. It doesn't give him a chance to be the one to inform us on it, if that is something he wanted to do. I don't think you had any bad intention, but like I said, I wouldn't have done it.

 

[Carlos Danger]

I wouldn't have posted his name here either, because I think the same point could have been easily made without it. But I also don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with posting his name here. The violation is easily accessible public information that hundreds, maybe thousands of people have already seen and any one of us could have stumbled across, so really there's no violation of privacy at all.

I think it comes down to motivations: why was his name posted? If it was sincerely just a "hey ya'll, for the handful who knows who this is, here's something that happened that you might want to know about so we can keep him in our thoughts and prayers" then it's cool. I didn't really get that vibe at all from the original post here, it was more of a "Look! this is what happens when we don't secure our narcs properly". But whatever. It's out there now and it gives us food for a good discussion on an important topic.

This kind of touches on the point I was trying to make in my last post: substance abuse issues need to be approached as mental health problems. No one would be calling it a **** move if someone posted an sympathetic message about a well-known forum member being diagnosed with cancer. Our reaction to this news should be very similar. Until the stigma of addiction is lifted and people don't need to worry about their reputation and careers being ruined for it, they will continue to NOT seek help and these stories will continue to have unfortunate endings.

Edited for clarity.

 

[akflightmedic]

They made the information public, but you helped to make sure his friends see it here. If it weren't for you, a lot of us probably would never know. It doesn't give him a chance to be the one to inform us on it, if that is something he wanted to do. I don't think you had any bad intention, but like I said, I wouldn't have done it.

This is the part I wish to address and piggyback on Remi. The person is sick and needs help. The flags have been thrown, the cries have been made and yet he continued on due to fail safes within the system and society not noticing until too late. He has his life and he has pieces to pick up, the career, possibly forever gone however that is a fair consequence (for those who insist when one must be punished).

When he violated public/patient trust, he no longer has a complete expectation of privacy either. People need to know to prevent further harm to others and further harm to himself. He is probably at his worst. He is in no stage to "share or out himself to friends". This is a situation where the circle is informed and the circle tightens up (if they are true friends and family). This is where the condemnation and toxic shame or judging stops if on the inside circle. This is where people who are close say..."Wow, you really F*kced up, you are sick, you need help and I will do my part, but you got to do yours". Boundaries MUST be established and defined if you are one who chooses to assist. It is a tough road for all involved.

But like Remi said, this is a disease. Sure, bad choices got them there, will keep them there for a while but why is the initial reaction to turn our backs and shame the person? Would you do this to the coal miner with black lung, he after all chose to go in knowing the risks.

I am not a fool, he will most likely fall, and fall again. But stop the shame, circle the group and know when to bail, because your safety/security/health should always come before his, however until a non-negotiable boundary is broken...say the name, spread the word and offer what you can.

 

[RocketMedic]

I don't think shame should be part of the discussion. It certainly wasn't the intent. We've spoken and he is on a better path. With that being said, I also think AK and Remi are right, and I posted it for those of us who know him to know and help, if possible.

There's a greater discussion though, and that's that no one is immune. I'd like to try and make diversion less common.

 

[MMiz]

I see both sides of the argument as to whether the user's name and information should be posted on EMTLife.

Still, I removed the attachment that included the person's full name and replaced it with a censored version.

 

[RocketMedic]

I think that knowing there is an accetable path to treatment could help keep these people from diverting.

 

[VFlutter]

I understand how horrible addiction is and not that any diversion is justifiable but I think there is a distinction between misappropriating drugs (i.e not wasting, expired meds, etc) and directly withholding medications to patients for personal use. The latter is unforgivable in my opinion. I appreciate that there are pathways to get help and possibly come back to the profession however once that line is crossed, you should be done.

I know some states give suspended/revoked RNs restricted licensure that allows them to work in places with no direct access to narcotics such as schools and MD offices.

 

[RocketMedic]

Yeah, but I really don't know how restricted licensure would apply in EMS.

 

[Akulahawk]

Nurse that work with a restricted license are also typically under strong surveillance and that surveillance doesn't seem to look just at the misused substance. This is on top of being allowed to only work in positions where they do not have to handle controlled substances. In the case of a Paramedic, the only way I could see that working would be to "downgrade" the provider to that of an EMT and stipulate that no controlled substances be handled by said individual and also remain under very strong surveillance. The only way that can happen is if the person works on a 100% BLS truck. That's not exactly going to work well at some workplaces. Given how many Paramedics there are, I suspect that it's easier to release such a person from employment in EMS altogether and hire someone without a restricted license.

 

[Carlos Danger]

I understand how horrible addiction is and not that any diversion is justifiable but I think there is a distinction between misappropriating drugs (i.e not wasting, expired meds, etc) and directly withholding medications to patients for personal use. The latter is unforgivable in my opinion. I appreciate that there are pathways to get help and possibly come back to the profession however once that line is crossed, you should be done.

Eh, I guess it depends on the circumstances, but I think if you truly view addiction as a mental health disorder, then you have to concede that people don't have complete control over the decisions they make while suffering from the disorder.

 

[RocketMedic]

Eh, I guess it depends on the circumstances, but I think if you truly view addiction as a mental health disorder, then you have to concede that people don't have complete control over the decisions they make while suffering from the disorder.

^this, I think that addicts are people who are driven to bad decisions by desperation. Maybe we could work with our health plans to self-identify and take a sabbatical for treatment?