Harm reduction itself is a heavily contested topic, predominantly with regards to its definition, but subsequently with its effectiveness, which is highly dependant on which definition is applied. It is important when discussing definition debates to consider that, as stated by Erickson (1995) "our interpretations of the term tend to change over time and this is a healthy process that is essential in the full articulation of an 'emerging public health perspective'" (Erickson, 1995: 283). There is literature to suggest that the term 'harm reduction' was firstly used only in application to programmes and policies that tried to reduce harm for individuals that continued to use substances, and as such did not include abstinence focused approaches (Single and Rohl, 1997). This deliberate exclusion from definition is beneficial in the sense that it clarifies harm reductions stance in …show more content…
However, these disadvantages are not without criticism, with many suggesting that their ought to be differing terminology, with ‘reduction of harm’ referring to anything that reduces the harm of drug use, and ‘harm reduction’ referring to “specific measures which prevent the baleful consequences of drug use without setting out to achieve this by interfering with drug consumption” (Wodak and Saunders, 1995: 269). Furthermore is the debate as to whether ‘harm reduction’ refers to policies and official programmes designed to reduce the negative effects of drug consumption, such as needle exchange, or whether it can be considered to encompass other aspects of reduction of harm, such as the influence of peers. The risk when introducing broader definitions is then being able to differentiate between
Bruce K. Alexander’s essay “Reframing Canada’s ‘Drug Problem’” is about shifting the focus from intervention to prevention. Alexander explains that in Canada there have been three major waves of drug intervention: “Criminal prosecution and intensive anti-drug” (225), “medicinal and psychological treatment” (225), and the ‘“harm reduction’ techniques” (225) being the most resent. The “’harm reduction’” (225) consisted of: clean injectable heroin, clean needles, methadone, and housing for addicts. Although each of the methods is devoted and knowledgeable, they have done little to decrease the deaths or suppress the unhappiness. While clean heroin did work well few addicts quit using and many found
Perhaps one of the most pressing concerns is health and the assumption that to a certain degree criminalization is justified by preserving health. Illicit drugs are, in reality, not as hazardous to public health as accustomed views present- particularly in relation to certain recreational activities that are legal. Of the 25,000 illegal drug use-induced fatalities the National Institute on Drug Abuse has brought to light, the majority is more correctly due to drug prohibition than consumption. Also, some 14,300 of the casualties are a result of diseases like AIDS, transferred (generally) because of contaminated drug injection needles. Needle exchange programs for sterile needles are encouraged by the World Health Organization, amongst many other international organizations, as it is considered as possibly the greatest innovation for the health improvement of users. However, the federal government disallows the appropriation of its funds to these programs because the possession and sale of syringes still remain largely illegal. Furthermore, - as I explain later on- between the sellers and producers, there is no real confidence in the contents and hence, dangerousness of a given street drug. Considering the already growing level of consumption, imagine the gains of, for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supervising illicit drugs, parallel to their work on food and
Two main arguments for needle exchange programs include that the needle exchange would help prevent the spread of disease and that they are key to fighting HIV and in turn saving lives. Since, the needle exchange programs don’t really force people to get off the substance they are abusing, a lot of users will actually choose to do the treatment programs on their own because they don’t feel pressured into doing so. Not only do the needle exchange programs supply sterile needles they also supply counseling and therapy for those that not only want some help in the guidance of getting off their substance, but mental and life assistance to help them to reestablish their lives. By doing so the previously addicted can reestablish relat...
Alexander explains that in Canada there has been three major waves of drug intervention, the ‘“harm reduction’ techniques” (225) being the most resent consisted of: clean injectable heroin, clean needles, methadone, and housing. Although, each of the methods are devoted and knowledgeable they have done little to decreased the deaths or supress the unhappiness. While clean heroin did work well few addicts quit using and many found the conditions of reserving the drugs to be repulsive. Yet another method is legalization which is nothing new and will do little to help.
A review of the literature on the term "harm reduction" reveals that no universal definition exists. The concep...
According to Hill Harper,“Once you have a felony conviction on your record, one of the most difficult things to do is to break the cycle of recidivism”(Hill Harper, 1966). Once you’re claimed to be a criminal the likelihood of you continuing your past behavior skyrockets. As a child, I believedI grew up believing that we all make mistakes and that the only way forward is to learn from them. To push yourself through the whatever wall that you have’ve created is the same as building your future block by block. However, it seemsseemsis seemingly impossible to push forward after society has tagged you a felon. Therefore,, the wall created seems to be built to be unbreakable. Felons have virtually no ability to be reintroduced into society, and
Drug legalization is an end to government-enforced prohibition of certain substances. It has sparked a great debate in the U.S. over the past couple of years. With two states, Colorado and Washington, already completely eliminating the illegalization of marijuana, should the rest of the country legalize the use of marijuana and other drugs too? There are many advantages and disadvantages of legalizing marijuana, but other drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, ecstasy, etc., should they be legalized? Are the health issues too much of a risk? The question is; which will outweigh each other? In my own opinion, I think the only drug that should be legalized is marijuana. Although only legalizing it to an extent with boundaries and restrictions. Many people in this world have disorders that can be treated with the use of medicinal marijuana. Would the people using it for recreational purposes overthrow the opportunity for future medicinal marijuana users? Above all, the profit from legalizing it would help solve other problems far more important than arresting drug abusers.
It states that it sets out to achieves this by imposing a complete ban on the possession, supply, manufacture, the import and export of controlled drugs except as allowed by regulations or by licence from the Secretary of State. It was hoped, that by doing so drug misuse and the societal problems associated with it can not only be prevented, but in the long-term almost eradicated (Gossop, 2000). For the first time the legislation broke down illegal substances into three categories of A, B, C (See appendix 1 for table). The basis for the classification system in the MDA is intended to be the harmfulness and danger that is associated with each type of controlled drug. Therefore, the punishment received would be respectable to the classification of the drug one possessed, for example, an individual caught in possession of a class A substance such as heroin could face upwards of 7 years in prison (see appendix 1). However, the Act does not give a criteria of harm or dangerousness by which they may be judged. This leaves a gap that has been filled with repeated debates over how harm should be defined, on which drugs are more harmful and about why the controlled drugs should be treated no differently to two licit drugs, alcohol and tobacco, each of which cause more mortality and morbidity than all the controlled drugs combined (Reuter & Stevens, 2007). As shown with the disparities in sentencing for
The public health model differs from traditional health practices, as its focus is on the health of the public instead of one patient. It uses a “3 prong approach to prevention and intervention” “known as the agent, host, and the environment.” This is because threats to public health require a susceptible host, an infectious agent, and a supportive environment that allows the spread of infection. By doing this, professionals are able to develop preventions against issues of public health. This would include teaching children to say no to drugs at a young age in order to prevent addiction in the future, as they are susceptible hosts to becoming addicts. Also making drugs illegal to keep the agent from being accessible to people who could become addicts. The approach is useful in all areas of public health, and has been proven to intervene in the likeliness that something will become
Treatment as prevention is usually mentioned in regards to HIV treatment, where the antiretroviral therapy (ART) is administered to a sick person to treat their infection while also decreasing the transmission rate such that it prevents them from spreading the virus to others. ART will also prevent you from contracting HIV before exposure to the virus. The HIV treatment as prevention model is applicable to the drug offenses of prisoners because often HIV can spread through improper needle use when using and sharing intravenous drugs. However, the treatment as prevention model may be used on a broader scale as well, by treating the addictions seen in these communities to prevent them from engaging in what might be seen as a criminal offense. This broader “treatment as prevention” model should include four main creeds; the right to a harm reduction strategy to decrease
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
The current situation of drug control in the United States is imperfect and inadequate. Millions of men and women, both young and old, are affected by illicit drug use. It costs the United States about $6,123 every second because of drug use and its consequences (Office). Moreover, 90 percent of all adults with a substance use disorder started using under the age of 18 and half under the age of 15. Children who first smoke marijuana under the age of 14 are five times more likely to abuse drugs as adults than those who first use marijuana at age 18. Finally, the children of alcoholics are four times more likely to develop problems with alcohol (Prevent). Current legislation that has to do with the United States’ drug control policy is the Controlled Substances Act, which regulates the manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution of certain substances (Shannon). In 1966, Congress passed the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act also known as the NARA. This legislati...
Alcohol-related harm in Australia is substantial. Every year, more than 5,500 lives are lost due to alcohol-related harm, and 157,000 people are hospitalised, making alcohol one of Australia’s greatest health challenges. Throughout this essay, I will be evaluating the effectiveness of two alcohol-related harm reduction strategies. Alcohol-related harm is clear evidence that alcohol is impacting a person’s physical, mental or social well-being. Alcohol-related harm can be anything from hangovers and headaches to premature and accidental death. The methods that I will be addressing are what I believe are the most effectual ways of minimising alcohol-related harm. These are the taxation and pricing of alcohol and the access and availability of
The participants were asked to place stickers next to the two most important positive and negatives features of Insite. They select prevention of desease and access to health services. For the negative there was general consensu that they only selected negatives becuase thy had to, but they did not feel that strongly towards any of the negative selections. They overwelmingly selected, that the program was only reaching a small group of drug users. They felt the main downfall was with the scope of Insite rather than the servics or principle of harm reduction.
Perhaps most substance abuse starts in the teen years when young people are susceptible to pressure from their peers. One of the main concerns when dealing with substance abuse is the long term problems with substance such as addiction, dependency and tolerance. The physical state of an individual, who is addicted to a substance, will deteriorate over a long period of time. This is due to the chemicals that are being put into an individual body. One of the most important aspects of the effect of substance abuse on society includes ill health, disease, sickness, and in many cases death. The impact of substance abuse not only affects individuals who abuse substances but it affects our economy. Our government resources are negatively impacted by individual who abuse substances. According to (Lagliaro 2004) the implication of drug users extend far beyond the user, often damaging their relationships with their family, community, and health workers, volunteer and wider