square block, round hole
Drug abuse is a social issue. Trying to find medical solutions to it is both a waste of money and a waste of time.
The CDC idea of universal prescription registry is a bit misplaced. Most ER docs know who the seekers are. They are powerless to do anything about it.
EM is not my thing, but if it was and I had to choose between giving a seeker a narc script or getting sued for pain and suffering for not giving it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how that situation will play out.
We once had an amendment that outlawed one of the most common drugs of abuse, it didn't really work out to our benefit and was repealed.
Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are abused quite frequently. I'll bet even by many of us.
Student favorites include Adderall, THC, and Cocaine.
How about ED patients using nitro paste instead of viagra or another name brand because it is too expensive?
Or the power combination of prozac and viagra?
How about some "natural" products like creatine or protein drinks?
a depressed person or a "victim" of the stresses of today's society, wars, etc, may have legitimate pain. They may not, but they will always find something to ease that pain. Whether it is from a prescription or cooked up in the home lab is really irrelevant.
If you want to prevent abuse, there needs to be an alternative to medication. In the Us, such alternatives do not exist. Nobody wants to pay for them.
Rehab is the same way.In order for it to be effective, it has to be constant, if not inpatient, and probably life long counciling. Incarceration is not going to be an economically viable solution.
I saw a suggestion for reversal agents which is used with methadone treatment. It doesn't work. They just take the methadone until they can score some more street drugs.
I am not sure that letting somebody go into withdrawel constitutes "do no harm." That seems to me similar to letting a kid wander out into freeway traffic to teach them not to do that or to look both ways. While it definately sounds like the moral high ground to say "drug abusers deserve..." where does the moral high ground end? What if I started advocating taking away voting rights for anyone who didn't graduate from college? Seems reasonable to conclude for the continuation of our society and species that it should be the educated that are making the decisions.
Look at ancient Greek and early US history, the ones who could vote were "citizens" which in the former included males who were both physically fit and educated and in the later included white males with considerable education. Is there doubt that early America and ancient Greece (and even Rome) were not the pinacle of human society? What about martial societies like feudal Japan?
Anyway the point of all of this is that we cannot legislate morals. Nor can we base medical treatment off of morals not consistant with the long standing traditions of the medical and nursing professions.
What's next, we decide anyone who makes less than a middle class living is not entitled to medical care?
Anyway, the point still stands. If you want to solve the problem of drug abuse, you can't single out certain drugs or populations, you must remove the social issues that drive people to abuse in a responsible way.