Time Magazine’s article on “Why Doctors Are Giving Heroin to Heroin Addicts” begs the question, should we do what works or should we ignore what is right, on moral grounds? The article describes a study in the UK, where long-time heroin addicts were administered heroin under doctor supervision in clinics as part of a program to reduce their addiction to heroin. Most of the addicts had been using heroin for 15 years plus and many had attempted other treatment options, including methadone and going cold-turkey.
The results? The number of crimes committed by those in the study group who received heroin under supervision went from 1,700 in the 30 days before the program to 547 in the first six months of the program. This was much better than a control group receiving methadone. Similar programs were created in Switzerland and were recently supported by the people when they voted to continue public funding for the program. These types of programs work. The idea giving heroin addicts more of the drug they are addicted could seem like a moral hazard. Why can’t these addicts just quite, or should we not just lock them up? To the second question, our jails are already full of people who have committed much worse crimes and the jail system does not have the resources most of the time to properly handle drug addicts. To the first question, the reason person is an addict is because it is a medical addiction, so why not treat it like a moral issue?
The bigger point is that programs like this work to fix the problem. Needle programs reduce HIV infection and make the streets safer. Safe-sex programs in school reduce STD and pregnancy in school kids. These programs work and work much better than a moral stance not based on research ever will. It is effective public policy, which, by the way should not be based on a small section of society’s moral objections.
No comments:
Post a Comment