Tag: preventing overdose

  • Legal Battle Over Safe Injection Site Could Be Game Changer For US

    Legal Battle Over Safe Injection Site Could Be Game Changer For US

    Safehouse is engaged in a historic legal battle with the government over their attempt at opening the country’s first safe injection site.

    The outcome of a legal battle over whether to open the nation’s first supervised injection facility (SIF) rages on in Philadelphia. The result could influence other efforts to do the same elsewhere in the U.S.

    In February, Pennsylvania prosecutors and the federal Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit attempting to stop a local non-profit organization, Safehouse, from opening SIF locations in Philadelphia.

    They cite the “crack house statute” under the Controlled Substances Act, which made it a crime to “knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily… for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.”

    In response, Safehouse is countersuing the government in federal court. They argue that the “crack house statute” does not apply to SIFs. “Safehouse is nothing like a ‘crack house’ or drug-fueled ‘rave.’ Nor is Safehouse established ‘for the purpose’ of unlawful drug use,” stated Ilana Eisenstein, a lawyer for Safehouse.

    They argue that SIFs are less about drugs and more about providing a medical service. By giving people a safe place to use under medical supervision rather than alone on the street, SIFs save lives. Another important feature of SIFs, proponents say, is that they offer access to treatment and support. 

    “If you find a place that accepts the fact that you’re going to be consuming drugs and still offers you services in a non-judgmental way, you’re going to start to trust them,” says Ronda Goldfein, vice president and co-founder of Safehouse. “And once there’s a trust relationship, you’re more inclined to accept the range of treatment they’re offering, which includes recovery.”

    Safehouse also cites the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 in its countersuit. “[This] service is an exercise of the religious beliefs of its Board of Directors, who hold as core tenets preserving life, providing shelter to neighbors, and ministering to those most in need of physical and spiritual care,” stated Safehouse lawyer Eisenstein.

    Seattle, New York, Denver, Maryland, Maine and more are also considering opening supervised injection facilities, as opioid abuse and overdose have become increasingly problematic throughout the country.

    William McSwain, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who is suing Safehouse, says the outcome of the legal battle could have a ripple effect across the U.S.

    “This is something that I think people will be looking at as, in a sense, a test case that will have implications in other districts,” he said.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • FDA May Recommend Naloxone Be Co-Prescribed With Opioids

    FDA May Recommend Naloxone Be Co-Prescribed With Opioids

    The “co-prescribing” recommendation would apply to patients who are at high risk of overdose, including people who take a high-dose opioid.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering recommending that people who receive an opioid prescription are also offered a prescription for naloxone, the opioid overdose reversal drug. 

    The move is intended to reduce deaths from opioid overdose, but some people say that the effort is misguided. 

    The so-called co-prescribing recommendation would apply to patients who are at high risk of overdose, including people who take a high-dose opioid, have a history of addiction or have sleep apnea, according to CNN.

    Kristy Shepard, a Virginia patient who uses opioids, didn’t know that she had a naloxone prescription waiting for her at the pharmacy. She said that her doctor didn’t give her a heads up about the state’s new co-prescribing recommendations. Other states, including California and Ohio have made similar recommendations, but Shepard doesn’t understand why. 

    “It’s so silly. I didn’t feel like I needed it. Unless I plan to hurt myself, I’m not likely to overdose,” she said. 

    However, Dr. Nathan Schlicher, who is on Washington state’s opioid task force and works as an emergency medicine physician, said this is a common misunderstanding. 

    “You can take pain meds responsibly, and you can be at risk for an accidental overdose even when you’re doing everything right,” he said. Washington also has a co-prescribing recommendation. 

    If the FDA recommends co-prescribing, the need for naloxone would increase by 48 million dosages annually, according to an FDA report. That could be a big financial incentive to drug makers, who have spent money lobbying for similar efforts at the state level, especially in California. 

    Some opponents point out that having naloxone on hand only works if the people taking opioids have someone around who could administer the drug if they overdose. 

    Katie O’Leary, who deals with pain, said that talking about overdose risk and carrying naloxone should be a conversation between individual providers and their patients, not a federal requirement. 

    “So many patients already jump through so many hoops to get their meds,” she said. “And if you live alone and don’t have family or friends to take care of you, the naloxone might not be something that could actually help.” 

    Dr. Farshad Ahadian, medical director at the University of California San Diego Health Center for Pain Medicine, agreed, saying, “Most providers probably feel that it’s better for physicians to self-regulate rather than practice medicine from the seat of the legislature. The truth is there’s been a lot of harm from opioids, a lot of addiction. It’s undeniable that we have to yield to that and to recognize that public safety is critical.”

    View the original article at thefix.com