1/In 2007, after a wave of >1000 fentanyl overdose deaths, I wrote that the fundamental barrier to saving lives was a reluctance to “speak with outrage, and with love, about the lives that have been lost”
2/I am asking seriously. My thought had been “if we speak now and say these lives matter to us, we will do everything in our power to save them”.
What is the lesson of the last five years? Have our actions been insufficient? Many state policies: jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
3/That last paper suggests the success of prescription opioid control just pushed the number of deaths ⬆️ as people with opioid use disorder shifted toward more lethal product. But such state level models are never free of fault.
4/Actual expansion of addiction treatment has happened with poor penetration to many communities and the gap (Need vs Availability) is either not being closed or not closed enough jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
5/From the frontlines I see an enormous number of new clinicians across professions who are *taking up the call* of service for addiction, at least in regard to buprenorphine prescribing - but we are starting from a depleted baseline sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
6/At least 4 gaps remain: First addiction care is still not a mainstream requirement in training of licensed clinicians. This could have been fixed by the boards that credential & certify schools and training programs, years ago. Addiction kills 100s of thousands a year.
7/The 2nd issue is that we often approach addiction treatment and “opioid crisis” without reference to a web of needs that can alter or undermine recovery -trauma, disability, racial or ethnic bias, poverty, inability to get work due to justice involvement, loneliness
8/3rd gap is: sustaining the professionals who seek to work with highly vulnerable & challenging populations depends on supporting them, paying them & celebrating their work.
Our sad tradition has been this:
to marginalize the professionals who care for the marginalized
9/the 4th gap is our society is not in agreement about what is okay to do in the name of safety for people who might use drugs, and either do not have addiction (the majority),
or who have addiction but are not at this moment seeking treatment.
That is a safety issue
10/I also note that a component of our policy responses involved changing opioid prescriptions- without a shared notion as to what it would mean to change people’s care and without including the people affected by those changes in the planning or action phases
11/To answer the question i started with. I wasn’t wrong to declare that our absence of outrage was a discouraging sign in 2007. Shared commitments would have been a necessary (but far from sufficient) step toward saving lives. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/The message from @AmerMedicalAssn to “Stop Scope Creep” flags a signal in opposition to the lessons I gained from 24 years of care for persons experiencing homelessness.
2/I can imagine some specific tensions that do arise for generalist MDs like me if payers supplant us fully in favor of other clinicians - but a broadcast hashtag #StopScopeCreep runs smack into many other competing and serious problems
3/First: in my world of caring for persons experiencing homelessness, I have been teamed up with Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants and RNs whose training and life experience are absolutely crucial, and compensate for my limitations
2/Interviews with 41 persons tapered (⬇️>50% ) were open. The framework for assessing stigma allowed that it may include “societal-level conditions, cultural norms, & institutional policies that constrain the opportunities, resources, and wellbeing of the stigmatized”
3/Major finding: "Participants identified themselves as overlooked and negatively impacted by measures implemented during the pharmacovigilance period, including various tapering initiatives"
Yep, I've witnessed that.
1/I'm excited that Dr. @AjayManhapra is presenting on concerns about mandatory opioid taper for VA's MAT-VA journal club, based on our shared paper... he notes Human costs of mandatory and widespread opioid taper
2/He cites @BethDarnall as the best available study, noting that even when one offers the best support system, a significant % of patients do not have a reduction in pain or pain worsens.
3/In a way that will seem controversial, he proposes that opioid therapy is not exactly an analgesic. This is daily use of an addictive substance that offers relief, where only a minority develop addiction.
1/Nice viewpoint out today: "Balancing the Risks and Benefits of Benzodiazepines" -authors note risks of these drugs and their utility, in light of @US_FDA changing the label to highlight risks jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
2/FDA's revised warning will more thoroughly cover risks, and the authors endorse that "increased caution regarding benzodiazepine use is warranted; fewer benzodiazepine prescriptions are needed" ... with a careful stipulation...
3/Benzodiazepine risks needed to be highlighted, "However, when considered without an appropriate patient-centered context, this enhanced warning statement might lead to fewer appropriate prescriptions and unintended consequences" - this should echo what happened with opioids
“Why did so many physicians become Nazis?” – this new essay bears on us, the non-Nazi doctors. In short, “science” can be invoked by immoral agents, & science language can seduce us into societal plans that override our duties to individuals @tabletmag /1 tabletmag.com/sections/histo…
Germany was extreme, of course.
Over 50% of doctors joined the Nazi party. There, Jews, gays & disabled persons were designated a disease on the German “body”. Ridding Germany of them was seen as good science.
We need not project the US will follow that, ever /2
But the US & other nations have not been alien to an immoral use of science-based authority.
Germany’s Laws for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring were based on American laws, passed earlier. We should all know about Tuskegee
/3 cdc.gov/tuskegee/timel…