Cargando…

Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment

A decade of research in Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, and Spain now constitutes a massive body of work supporting the use of heroin treatment for the most difficult patients addicted to opiates. These trials concur on this method's safety and efficacy and are now serving as a prelude t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Small, Dan, Drucker, Ernest
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1557662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16670010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-3-16
_version_ 1782129390794047488
author Small, Dan
Drucker, Ernest
author_facet Small, Dan
Drucker, Ernest
author_sort Small, Dan
collection PubMed
description A decade of research in Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, and Spain now constitutes a massive body of work supporting the use of heroin treatment for the most difficult patients addicted to opiates. These trials concur on this method's safety and efficacy and are now serving as a prelude to the institution of heroin treatment in clinical practice throughout Europe. While the different sampling and research protocols for heroin treatment in these studies were important to the academic claims about specific results and conclusions that could be drawn from each study, the overall outcomes were quite clear – and uniformly positive. They all find that the use of prescribed pharmaceutical heroin does exactly what it is intended to do: it reaches a treatment refractory group of addicts by engaging them in a positive healthcare relationship with a physician, it reduces their criminal activity, improves their health status, and increases their social tenure through more stable housing, employment, and contact with family. The Canadian trial (NAOMI), now underway for over a year, but not yet completed, now faces a dilemma about what to do with its patients who have successfully completed 12 months of heroin and must be withdrawn from heroin and transferred to other treatments in accordance with the research protocol approved by Government of Canada, federal granting body and host institutions. The problem is that the principal criterion for acceptance to NAOMI was their history of repeated failure in these very same treatment programs to which they will now be referred. The existence of the results from abroad (some of which were not yet available when NAOMI was designed and initiated) now raises a very important question for Canada: is it ethical to continue to prohibit the medical use of heroin treatment that has already been shown to be feasible and effective in numerous medical studies throughout the world? And while this is being worked out, is it acceptable to require patients who have been successfully treated with heroin in Canada, to be forced to move back to less effective treatments (treatments that failed to be efficacious in the past)? This essay discusses this dilemma and places it in the broader context of ethics, science, and health policy. It makes the case for continuation of the current successful patients in heroin treatment and the institution of heroin treatment to all Canadian patients living with active addictions who qualify.
format Text
id pubmed-1557662
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-15576622006-08-31 Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment Small, Dan Drucker, Ernest Harm Reduct J Review A decade of research in Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, and Spain now constitutes a massive body of work supporting the use of heroin treatment for the most difficult patients addicted to opiates. These trials concur on this method's safety and efficacy and are now serving as a prelude to the institution of heroin treatment in clinical practice throughout Europe. While the different sampling and research protocols for heroin treatment in these studies were important to the academic claims about specific results and conclusions that could be drawn from each study, the overall outcomes were quite clear – and uniformly positive. They all find that the use of prescribed pharmaceutical heroin does exactly what it is intended to do: it reaches a treatment refractory group of addicts by engaging them in a positive healthcare relationship with a physician, it reduces their criminal activity, improves their health status, and increases their social tenure through more stable housing, employment, and contact with family. The Canadian trial (NAOMI), now underway for over a year, but not yet completed, now faces a dilemma about what to do with its patients who have successfully completed 12 months of heroin and must be withdrawn from heroin and transferred to other treatments in accordance with the research protocol approved by Government of Canada, federal granting body and host institutions. The problem is that the principal criterion for acceptance to NAOMI was their history of repeated failure in these very same treatment programs to which they will now be referred. The existence of the results from abroad (some of which were not yet available when NAOMI was designed and initiated) now raises a very important question for Canada: is it ethical to continue to prohibit the medical use of heroin treatment that has already been shown to be feasible and effective in numerous medical studies throughout the world? And while this is being worked out, is it acceptable to require patients who have been successfully treated with heroin in Canada, to be forced to move back to less effective treatments (treatments that failed to be efficacious in the past)? This essay discusses this dilemma and places it in the broader context of ethics, science, and health policy. It makes the case for continuation of the current successful patients in heroin treatment and the institution of heroin treatment to all Canadian patients living with active addictions who qualify. BioMed Central 2006-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC1557662/ /pubmed/16670010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-3-16 Text en Copyright © 2006 Small et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Small, Dan
Drucker, Ernest
Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment
title Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment
title_full Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment
title_fullStr Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment
title_full_unstemmed Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment
title_short Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment
title_sort policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1557662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16670010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-3-16
work_keys_str_mv AT smalldan policymakersignoringscienceandscientistsignoringpolicythemedicalethicalchallengesofherointreatment
AT druckerernest policymakersignoringscienceandscientistsignoringpolicythemedicalethicalchallengesofherointreatment
AT policymakersignoringscienceandscientistsignoringpolicythemedicalethicalchallengesofherointreatment