We read Marshall et al.’s paper with great interest but were left with many questions and concerns (Marshall et al., in press). As a group of public health researchers and practitioners (nursing, s...

The legalization of cannabis in Canada instantiates principles of harm-reduction and safe supply. However, in-depth understanding of values at stake and attitudes toward legalization were not part of extensive democratic deliberation. Through a qualitative exploratory study, we undertook 48 semi-structured interviews with three Canadian stakeholder groups to explore opinions and values with respect to the legalization of cannabis: (1) members of the general public, (2) people with lived experience of addiction and (3) clinicians with experience treating patients with addiction. Across (...) all groups, participants tended to be in favor of legalization, but particular opinions rested on their viewpoint as stakeholders. Clinicians considered the way legalization would affect an individual’s health and its potential for increasing rates of addiction on a larger scale. People with lived experience of addiction cited personal autonomy more than other groups and stressed the need to have access to quality information to make truly informed decisions. Alternatively, members of the public considered legalization positive or negative in light of whether one’s addiction affected others. We elaborate on and discuss how scientific evidence about drug use impact values relates and how can different arguments play in democratic debates about legalization. (shrink)

Marshall et al. (2024) identify a potential ethical conflict between the principles of beneficence and respect for patient autonomy when patients refuse to remain in an emergency department (ED) fo...

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the drug poisoning epidemic in a number of ways: individuals use alone more often, there is decreased access to harm reduction services and there has been an increase in the toxicity of the unregulated drug supply. In response to the crisis, clinicians, policy makers and people who use drugs have been seeking ways to prevent the worst harms of unregulated opioid use. One prominent idea is safe supply. One form of safe supply enlists clinicians to (...) prescribe opioids so that people have access to drugs of known composition and strength. In this paper, we assess the ethical case for clinicians providing this service. As we describe, there is much that is unknown about safe supply. However, given the seriousness of the overdose death epidemic and the current limited evidence for safe supply’s efficacy, we argue that it is ethically permissible for clinicians to begin prescribing opioids for some select patients. (shrink)

Prescription opioid policies too often reflect over a century's worth of moralizing about the nature of opioid use disorder, the value of pain, and the meaning of suffering. The social and legal penalties to prescribers run in one direction—avoid overprescribing, however defined, at all costs. The lack of shared definitions is problematic for formulating and evaluating opioid policy. For example, the variant definitions of “misuse,” “abuse,” and “addiction” complicate estimates of morbidity. There are also no widely accepted definitions of misprescribing (...) and overprescribing. I offer here a modest attempt at the categorization of misprescribing: inadvertent overprescribing, corrupt overprescribing, qualitative overprescribing, quantitative overprescribing, multiclass overprescribing, and underprescribing. (shrink)

North America is in the grips of an epidemic of opioid-related poisonings. Overdose education and naloxone distribution programmes emerged as an option for structurally vulnerable populations who could not or would not access mainstream emergency medical services in the event of an overdose. These task shifting programmes utilize lay persons to deliver opioid resuscitation in the context of longstanding stigmatization and marginalization from mainstream healthcare services. OEND programmes exist at the intersection of harm reduction and emergency services. One goal of (...) OEND programmes is to help redress the health-related inequities common among people who use drugs, which include minimizing the gap between people who use drugs and the formal healthcare system. However, if this goal is not achieved these inequities may be entrenched. In this article, we consider the ethical promises and perils associated with OEND as task shifting. We argue that public health practitioners must consider the ethical aspects of task shifting programmes that may inadvertently harm already structurally vulnerable populations. We believe that even if OEND programmes reduce opioid-related deaths, we nevertheless question if, by virtue of its existence, OEND programmes might also unintentionally disenfranchise structurally vulnerable populations from comprehensive healthcare services, including mainstream emergency care. (shrink)