What do you think about a recent proposal to let addicts die of overdoses?

[Shadow Wolf]

if they are repeat overdosers then they are unwilling or unable to utilize rehabilitation. I agree we should help addicts, but I'd say lets distribute the resources to people who can be saved--first time overdosers.

If someone is addicted, they are likely not going to overdose once. And just because it is their first overdose doesn't mean they are more likely to get over their addiction.

 

[serp777]

If someone is addicted, they are likely not going to overdose once. And just because it is their first overdose doesn't mean they are more likely to get over their addiction.

Premise: There's a set of people who are first time overdosers who can benefit from rehabilitation, and there's another set of people who will not benefit from it. This is a true dichotomy.

So you start rehabilitating all people at this first stage (the first overdose). Some people never overdose again and are saved. Others continue and overdose again. This continues for the three strikes.

By the third strike the people who will benefit from rehabilitation is an extremely small pool, while the pool of those who will not benefit is quite large. If you haven't benefited from rehabilitation at that point, it won't likely do you much good.

This is essentially a Bayesian analysis/probability argument.

 

[Glaurung]

Would you rather spend millions repeatedly saving a person from an overdose who will probably die anyways or use that money to save and helps dozens of others?

I doubt it costs millions to resuscitate someone.

Its a question of resource distribution and if you truly have compassion you'll want to distribute it to benefit the most people. I think its actually a lack of compassion to waste money on a bunch of repeat overdosers when we could be saving a lot of other people with that money--people who deserve better.

You could save a lot of lives (of those who deserve better) if you harvest irredeemable and recidivist criminals for their organs. Why waste resources keeping lifers alive?

This kind of armchair utilitarianism can easily lead to some dark conclusions.

 

[serp777]

I doubt it costs millions to resuscitate someone.


You could save a lot of lives (of those who deserve better) if you harvest irredeemable and recidivist criminals for their organs. Why waste resources keeping lifers alive?

This kind of armchair utilitarianism can easily lead to some dark conclusions.

I doubt it costs millions to resuscitate someone.

Not on one overdose, but repeated overdoses (like 10-15 times) is getting close to that in total. Ambulences are very expensive and most of these overdosing people don't pay. Many of them go to a hospital for supervision and are put in contact with counsellors and the police. Thats a lot of effort and money.

You could save a lot of lives (of those who deserve better) if you harvest irredeemable and recidivist criminals for their organs. Why waste resources keeping lifers alive?

Possibly a good point. I'd be open to it, but the difference here is that you're actively taking an action to kill someone, where's in the proposal here you're just letting a person do it to themself. I'd absolutely be open to lifers committing suicide and donating their organs if they want to--a way to redeem themselves and save the US some money. This situation is more comparable.

My justification for both these decisions is that liberty and freedom is just as important as utilitarianism. I never said I was a utilitarian absolutist. I find it a very useful tool to guide decisions.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What do you guys think of proposal online to let addicts die after their third overdose? I think it could have merits. If by the third time you still haven't learned, then it seems reasonable to just let them do what they want. In conjunction with more counselling and help for the first or second time overdosers, this could be much more effective by weeding out repeat offenders who soak up public services. The money saved from repeat offenders could be devoted towards helping with drug rehabilitation programs that will ultimately save more people and money.

I'd like to hear some moral and utilitarian arguments for this proposal given the huge problem the United States has with drug overdose. Also, please no fallacious arguments from moral outrage. I'd like arguments from a rational ethics and or a utilitarian perspective.

Are we talking about utilitarian arguments regarding the addicts themselves, or the effect on the wider community? Addicts don't die without effecting their friends, family and communities negatively.

Short answer, though, assuming we're talking developed Western nation, and considering a full Naloxone kit costs ~$40, I really don't think "greatest good for greatest number" triage is an appropriate paradigm. If we're talking about something with expensive, limited supply, like donor organs, that would be very different.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I doubt it costs millions to resuscitate someone.

Naloxone is about $40 a pop. A fully crewed ambulance costs a couple of hundred dollars for a call out. Full resuscitation of an OD might cost a thousand dollars, worst case. Personally, I don't think that's excessive for a life.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Not on one overdose, but repeated overdoses (like 10-15 times) is getting close to that in total. Ambulences are very expensive and most of these overdosing people don't pay. Many of them go to a hospital for supervision and are put in contact with counsellors and the police. Thats a lot of effort and money.

I see another case of someone thinking the ridiculous cost of medical care in the US is reflective of the actual cost of providing said care.

It's not.

 

[Duke_Leto]

I understand the answer perfectly well, but I want to hear it from the horse’s mouth: What “problem” is this measure supposed to solve exactly?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do you guys think of proposal online to let addicts die after their third overdose? I think it could have merits. If by the third time you still haven't learned, then it seems reasonable to just let them do what they want. In conjunction with more counselling and help for the first or second time overdosers, this could be much more effective by weeding out repeat offenders who soak up public services. The money saved from repeat offenders could be devoted towards helping with drug rehabilitation programs that will ultimately save more people and money.

I'd like to hear some moral and utilitarian arguments for this proposal given the huge problem the United States has with drug overdose. Also, please no fallacious arguments from moral outrage. I'd like arguments from a rational ethics and or a utilitarian perspective.

I think after reasonable attempts, people should be allowed to be masters of their own fate and die by their own hand if they choose to do so. I'd probably up it to five times. One for each finger on their hand.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

All this rather ignores the fact that chronic drug use is far more likely to be a symptom rather than a cause, but I appreciate I'm unlikely to reform anyone's stereotypical, media and pundit reinforced prejudices in this one thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Premise: There's a set of people who are first time overdosers who can benefit from rehabilitation, and there's another set of people who will not benefit from it. This is a true dichotomy.

You won't be able to justify statistically setting it up like that. Such a dichotomy in addiction treatment does not exist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do you guys think of proposal online to let addicts die after their third overdose? I think it could have merits. If by the third time you still haven't learned, then it seems reasonable to just let them do what they want. In conjunction with more counselling and help for the first or second time overdosers, this could be much more effective by weeding out repeat offenders who soak up public services. The money saved from repeat offenders could be devoted towards helping with drug rehabilitation programs that will ultimately save more people and money.

I'd like to hear some moral and utilitarian arguments for this proposal given the huge problem the United States has with drug overdose. Also, please no fallacious arguments from moral outrage. I'd like arguments from a rational ethics and or a utilitarian perspective.

Anyone who has worked with or has spent a significant amount of time around addicts know that addiction is a disease. This proposal strikes me as ludicrous as proposing to let cancer patients die after their third reccurence.

 

[Mindmaster]

No, not a good plan IMO. I have a much better plan = Solve problem at the root
Take out all the drugs. Then after some time drugs addict are addicted to "not getting drugs".

And when you would argue "impossible because there are always drugs dealers"
Just inject the "drugs dealers with some good stuff, like you suggested"

And when you would argue "impossible because there are drugs Lords"
Same recipe would do for the drugs Lords

And when you would argue "impossible because there are drugs grown all over"
Same recipe for the drugs farmers

And when you would argue "impossible because our government is totally involved in this drugs business"
Same recipe for the drugs government involved

Oh you mean the president is involved, although Trump seems an exception here

So, now you see the real problem is complex. Can't blame the drug addict alone I would say.

https://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/18/opinion/salcedo-first-person-account-drug-corruption/index.html

Keeping them from drugs is absolutely impossible... We've been trying that for ages... The reason why is simple: the components are natural and exist in the environment somewhere. There are also legitimate medical uses for several of these compounds and therein lies the problem - there will always be a supply. I rather have people have access to a non-tainted supply that will probably NOT kill them than make them deal with a bunch of shady unregulated backyard drug dealers cutting their drugs with god knows what. You can't treat an addiction if they're are dead, but you are never going to stop every single one from killing themselves. It's just chasing a bunch of idealistic pipe dreams that waste money and resources. If you can keep one addict out of an ambulance society saves at least $2,000. That's my point - these decisions need to be made on math first. The first burden to society is economic, after that it becomes about treating the people. Handing out drugs like this makes it possible to get one on one contact with every single one of them and get them exposed to treatment avenues as well. Right now you have the problem that a lot of people are using and no one knows they're even in trouble. It solves that as well... No one is going to buy from a dealer if they can get it for free so you shut down the entire illicit drug industry and all the related crime. That's why this is a good idea.

 

[Shad]

I agree, but what can you do about people like that? Its best to instead spend the resources on people who can be saved. People who can integrate back with society. And as terrible as it is his suffering will end by his own hand. How many times and how much money will you spend saving him? He will not survive much longer anyways.

I have little issues in using resources for people as I described. I favour a return of involuntary institutionalization before the 3rd OD. First OD which is on record is grounds for institutionalization. Get to the problem before the 3rd OD.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Anyone who has worked with or has spent a significant amount of time around addicts know that addiction is a disease. This proposal strikes me as ludicrous as proposing to let cancer patients die after their third reccurence.

I've worked in meth clinics as a security guard for several years.

The idea that addiction is a disease is utter b*******.

That premise is also backed up by professionals.......

From 2012...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314045/

To 2017,

http://www.theclearingnw.com/blog/why-addiction-is-not-a-disease-an-interview-with-dr.-marc-lewis

Both USA and Canada.

https://nypost.com/2015/07/12/addic...were-treating-drug-and-alcohol-addicts-wrong/

 

[SalixIncendium]

I've worked in meth clinics as a security guard for several years.

The idea that addiction is a disease is utter b*******.

That premise is also backed up by professionals.......

From 2012...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314045/

To 2017,

http://www.theclearingnw.com/blog/why-addiction-is-not-a-disease-an-interview-with-dr.-marc-lewis

Both USA and Canada.

https://nypost.com/2015/07/12/addic...were-treating-drug-and-alcohol-addicts-wrong/

Oh? So why does the AMA and other medical associations classify it as such?

https://www.centeronaddiction.org/what-addiction/addiction-disease

I have worked with more than a few addicts, two of them quite closely. One died of an overdose a few months ago after I transferred out of the restaurant we both worked in. The other I work with on a daily basis helping her to manage her tendencies brought about by her illness.

You can post articles to your heart's content and tell me about how your qualifications as a security guard at a meth lab trump my personal experience working with addicts and fighting my own addictions, but you aren't likely to change my mind about addiction being a disease.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What do you guys think of proposal online to let addicts die after their third overdose? I think it could have merits. If by the third time you still haven't learned, then it seems reasonable to just let them do what they want. In conjunction with more counselling and help for the first or second time overdosers, this could be much more effective by weeding out repeat offenders who soak up public services. The money saved from repeat offenders could be devoted towards helping with drug rehabilitation programs that will ultimately save more people and money.

I'd like to hear some moral and utilitarian arguments for this proposal given the huge problem the United States has with drug overdose. Also, please no fallacious arguments from moral outrage. I'd like arguments from a rational ethics and or a utilitarian perspective.

Should a society choose to watch it's members die because treating them is expensive and time consuming?

No.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh? So why does the AMA and other medical associations classify it as such?

https://www.centeronaddiction.org/what-addiction/addiction-disease

I have worked with more than a few addicts, two of them quite closely. One died of an overdose a few months ago after I transferred out of the restaurant we both worked in. The other I work with on a daily basis helping her to manage her tendencies brought about by her illness.

You can post articles to your heart's content and tell me about how your qualifications as a security guard at a meth lab trump my personal experience working with addicts and fighting my own addictions, but you aren't likely to change my mind about addiction being a disease.

Well I suppose they should get their heads together with the Canadian Medical Association journal and publish an article in the journal debating all other published material to the contrary with professional qualifications considerably far above that of a simple security guard as I had been in the old days reminiscing all the days I spent babysitting these people. ;0)

Funny thing, I've noticed this so-called "disease" thing seems to be exclusively an American invention.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Why wouldn't it help society in the end? We know that rehabilitation works quite effectively. But repeat offenders clearly are unwilling or unable to utilize rehabilitation. So if we put more resources towards rehabilitation for first time overdosers, we can save more people overall--repeat offenders cost a lot and seem irredeemable so putting resources towards them is wasteful. It seems quite utilitarian

Your argument is invalid since we can already do that without letting people die. This way we get the job done and we still portrayed by the public eye to be morally right.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By the third strike the people who will benefit from rehabilitation is an extremely small pool, while the pool of those who will not benefit is quite large. If you haven't benefited from rehabilitation at that point, it won't likely do you much good.

The first part of NA is acknowledging you were powerless over your addiction and it made your life unmanageable. There is no magic number for the number of relapses and overdoses someone has had that reflects the success of treatment, and there are many factors to consider. Such as, addicts often have to change their environment. But, if your environment is surrounded by drugs and you can't do much to change that then, clinically, that is problematic. Some people need longer time in treatment, some not as long. But chances are good they do recognize and realize that each overdose is a problem.