Considering basics just got permission to use AEDs while on duty, I am gonna guess that it will take about a decade for narcan to appear on BLS ambulances.
Frequency Not Defined
Withdrawal reaction precipitated
Abrupt reversal of narcotic depression may result in nausea, vomiting, sweating, tachycardia, increased blood pressure and tremulousness
MEDSCAPE attributes these to opioid withdrawl syndrome. In my experience,:censored:but without nalozone, very rare. Otherwise , they basically call it mother's milk, and in fact states it's not known if it affects lactation.
Slippery slope giving drugs to techs otherwise not trained in them and then expecting them to titrate it to effect.
I was a basic in CA back in 2008-2011.... And we were trained and allowed (in fact mandated) to use the AED if needed.
That was both in Central NorCal and San Berdo Counties.
Also, narcan doesn't take 20 minutes to work.
As for the stuff I bolded- that's just EMS. We're slow to evolve, that's part of our problem gaining speed.
Does it really make sense to not administer an antidote to a dying person because the antidote may have some negative side effects?
Asking the question supplies the answer. "Do no (further) harm".
They will not allow laypersons to legally get and administer enough narcan to help in many cases. (So, often futile).
Some places already and illicitly slip narcan to their addicted clients, but one news article I head said they don't know if it is doing any good. (Suggests it is futile).
If you are convinced what you are going to do pharmaceutically (no matter how thin the chance of it working and no matter how thin your absolute knowledge of the drug) ought to be done because "I gotta do SOMETHING!" (to do nothing is distressing to you), then you are one foot in the Malpractice Hole and sliding towards killing or harming someone.
There are three questions here:
1. Is it ethical and safe (forget legal for the moment) to do this?
2. Is it realistic to expect it to help, based in scientific evidence and experience? Or will we see gross misdosaging, calls for 911 delayed because "We gave him the narcan, dude!", and incorporation of narcan into abuse patterns rather than as curative (such as medical O2 getting highjacked for hangovers enabling alcohol abuse).
3. Historically "antidotes" and "harmless drugs" (look up the history of the medicinal uses of thalidomide, radium salts, and strychnine) aren't. Should people without depth in background in assessment, care and pharmacodynamics be given antidote drugs to administer on the basis that a "panacea dose" (not tailored to pt weight and dose of poison) will save lives? IS there a "panacea dose", or do we just blast everyone with a high (pun untintended) dose? And remember, this is medicine being held and given by junkies, maybe often by people under the influence at the time.