Can Treatment for Substance Use Disorder Prescribe the same Substance as that Used? The Case of Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment.

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1353/ken.2021.0022
Daniel Steel, Şerife Tekin
{"title":"Can Treatment for Substance Use Disorder Prescribe the same Substance as that Used? The Case of Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment.","authors":"Daniel Steel,&nbsp;Şerife Tekin","doi":"10.1353/ken.2021.0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment (iOAT), in which patients suffering from long-term, treatment refractory opioid use disorder (OUD) are prescribed injectable diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient of heroin. While iOAT is part of the continuum of care for OUD in some European countries and in some parts of Canada, it is not an available treatment in the United States. We suggest that one reason for this situation is the belief that a genuine treatment for substance use disorder cannot prescribe the same substance as that used. We examine possible rationales for this belief by considering four combinations of views on the constitutive causal basis of substance use disorders and the definition of effective treatment. We show that all but one combination counts iOAT as a genuine treatment and that there are good reasons to reject the one that does not. Specifically, we claim that medical interventions, such as iOAT, that significantly reduce the severity of a disorder deserve to be categorized as effective treatments and regarded as such in practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"271-301"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2021.0022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article examines injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment (iOAT), in which patients suffering from long-term, treatment refractory opioid use disorder (OUD) are prescribed injectable diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient of heroin. While iOAT is part of the continuum of care for OUD in some European countries and in some parts of Canada, it is not an available treatment in the United States. We suggest that one reason for this situation is the belief that a genuine treatment for substance use disorder cannot prescribe the same substance as that used. We examine possible rationales for this belief by considering four combinations of views on the constitutive causal basis of substance use disorders and the definition of effective treatment. We show that all but one combination counts iOAT as a genuine treatment and that there are good reasons to reject the one that does not. Specifically, we claim that medical interventions, such as iOAT, that significantly reduce the severity of a disorder deserve to be categorized as effective treatments and regarded as such in practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
药物使用障碍的治疗可以使用与使用相同的药物吗?注射阿片激动剂治疗一例。
本文研究了注射阿片类药物激动剂治疗(iOAT),其中患有长期治疗难治性阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)的患者使用可注射的二乙酰吗啡(海洛因的有效成分)。虽然iOAT在一些欧洲国家和加拿大的一些地区是OUD连续治疗的一部分,但在美国它不是一种可用的治疗方法。我们认为,造成这种情况的一个原因是人们相信,对物质使用障碍的真正治疗不能开出与使用相同的物质。我们通过考虑关于物质使用障碍的构成因果基础和有效治疗定义的四种观点组合来检查这种信念的可能原理。我们表明,除了一种组合外,所有组合都将iOAT视为真正的治疗方法,并且有很好的理由拒绝不这样做的组合。具体地说,我们认为医疗干预,如iOAT,可以显著降低疾病的严重程度,应该被归类为有效的治疗方法,并在实践中被视为有效的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.
期刊最新文献
Contributors Editor's Note Data Solidarity Disrupted: Musings On the Overlooked Role of Mutual Aid in Data-Driven Medicine Allergic Intimacies: Food, Disability, Desire, and Risk by Michael Gill (review) Green Light Ethics: A Theory of Permissive Consent and its Moral Metaphysics by Hallie Liberto (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1