AMA journal of ethics最新文献

Structural determinants of health frameworks must express antiracism to be effective, but racial and ethnic inequities are widely documented, even in harm reduction programs that focus on person-centered interventions. Harm reduction strategies should express social justice and health equity, resist stigma and discrimination, and mitigate marginalization experiences among people who use drugs (PWUD). To do so, government and organizational policies that promote harm reduction must acknowledge historical and ongoing patterns of racializing drug use. This article gives examples of such racialization and offers recommendations about how harm reduction programming can most easily and effectively motivate equitable, antiracist care for PWUD.

Overall rates of opioid use are low in adolescents; however, recent increases in mortality from overdose in adolescents have outpaced increases in the general population. This article highlights the importance of expanding evidence-based treatment for adolescent opioid use, especially medication, while also addressing key ethical considerations of harm reduction practices and how application of such practices with adolescents may differ from adults. Concepts related to adolescent populations are discussed, including autonomy, confidentiality, and brain development. Application of harm reduction practices should be age appropriate, express respect for patients' autonomy, include social support, and be accompanied by broader aims to minimize adolescent initiation, escalation, and overall harm caused by opioid use.

Practices and interventions that aim to slow progression or reduce negative consequences of substance use are harm reduction strategies. Often described as a form of tertiary prevention, harm reduction is key to caring well for people who use drugs. Evidence-based harm reduction interventions include naloxone and syringe service programs. Improving equitable outcomes for those with opioid use disorder (OUD) requires access to the continuum of evidence-based OUD care, including harm reduction interventions, as well as dismantling policies that undermine mental health and substance use disorder treatment continuity, housing stability, and education and employment opportunities.

This article describes historical and political reasons for-and devastating consequences of-US opioid prescribing policy since the 1990s, which has restricted opioid prescribing for pain less than for treating opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. This article considers merits and drawbacks of a new diagnostic category and proposes a regulatory and clinical framework for prescribing long-term opioid therapy for pain and for prescribing opioids to treat OUD.

Evidence of harm reduction interventions' morbidity and mortality benefits is abundant and of high quality, so there are good reasons for regional and national groups to advocate for more widespread distribution of legally regulated "drug paraphernalia," including needles, syringes, and fentanyl test strips. But lack of consistency among states' laws means that patients' interstate travel can subject them to being charged with possession of illegal items. This commentary on a case offers guidance to clinicians looking to help patients understand legal risks of interstate travel with supplies that are prescribed or recommended to reduce harms of their drug use and explores the ethical responsibilities of physicians in jurisdictions that legally prohibit these harm reduction interventions.

Structural and systemic discrimination against people with substance use disorder is pervasive. Clinicians caring for patients receiving medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) should plan for possible disruptions of treatment caused by arrests and pretrial confinement in jails. This case commentary suggests that harms caused by such treatment disruption can be mitigated by clinicians who take some of the practical approaches outlined in this commentary to better preserve continuity of care for people receiving MOUD.

Between 1999 and 2020, more than 564 000 people in the United States died from opioid overdose. Domestically, the opioid epidemic tends to be approached not as a public health problem but as a law enforcement or judicial problem. Some US localities, however, are trying interventions modeled after international approaches that decriminalize opioid dependence. This article describes Portuguese approaches to persons with opioid use disorder.

Harm reduction emerged as a set of strategies developed by and for people who use opioids and other substances and strive to do so in ways that are as safe as possible. This article reviews histories of Black and queer community-based harm reduction practices and suggests how these histories can inform harm reduction policy and guide development and implementation of anti-overdose interventions.

This article considers what it might mean to do the moral work of grieving during an opioid epidemic. Becoming callous, bitter, or resentful are harms we can suffer to our characters when grieving losses, especially at epidemic scale. This article suggests how appreciating beauty can play roles in grieving that could help mitigate these harms.