Non- medical professionals carrying around "emergency naloxone".

I work in a library and if somebody ODs, I would really rather not take part in their scene. If I had to, I would, I guess. I mean, I wouldn't just watch a person die. But it seems to me that addicts pursue death every bit as much as they pursue that high, as if the high wouldn't be nearly as worthwhile if it wasn't so likely to end in death. And that is absolutely not my thing, and I'd be resentful as hell if I ended up getting dragged into their thing.

The dangerous part is when you fuck with the high of the overdosing individual. Administer and step away. Naloxone is the new condom

No fucking way. I'd call 911. But I am not going to administer a drug to someone who I don't know.

The recommendation is for family and friends to those at risk of an overdose to carry naloxone. Also the addicts themselves should carry it. He doesn't want all of us walking around with a dose just in case.

I work in a library system that is going to train all the personnel out on the floor to administer the Narcan nasal spray. The overdosing in our libraries has gotten that bad.

I read an interview with a librarian who has been using Narcan all year to revive overdosed addicts. She appreciates that she has a new tool to save lives, but she also said, "If I'd wanted to work as an EMT, I would have become an EMT." It's not something that librarians ever thought they'd have to administer.

When is there going to be a class action lawsuit against the makers of oxy?

If you don’t want to have anything to do with this... then you don’t have to.

For those who have family and/or friends who are addicts... they may wish to have Narcan on hand.

For those who are worried about lawsuits, Narcan is extremely easy to administer... and there are no ill effects if you administer it incorrectly, or give It to someone who doesn’t need it (ie, not overdosing).

No worries.

I would do it just so I could say that I say that I have a "save shot."

I also aspire to be a Prepper so I can use the term "bug out."

R8. Only losers say “save shot” and “bug out”.

Please off yourself.

If I spent a lot of time hanging around addicts, I might consider it.

So what's the Surgeon General doing with HIS free time, then?

It’s sad that it’s come to this

R5 Librarians aren't the only ones whose job description has slowly evolved into medical territory.

My profession was trained in using the AED almost 20 years ago, and I have seen over 15 people's lives saved because of it. I feel certain that we will be carrying the naloxone soon as well.

you didn't say your profession r12.

[quote] It’s sad that it’s come to this

It hasn't, R11. But thanks for trying to make people think it is. Now go to an alt-right board. You sound like a used ass wipe on this board but would be a god on some evangelical site.

You still run the risk of getting sued. Federal law has no 'good samaritan' act, and even in states that do, it's easy to find an excuse to transfer the charge to a federal court. Call 911 and let them deal with it.

I loved working at my local library in high school. I don't think I'd like it anymore.

CNN did a long article about the opioid epidemic in West Virginia. The cops and EMTs said they’d saved hundreds of ppl from deadly overdose and were never thanked once. The addicts sometimes complain about the interference with their high.

I would totally carry Narcan if I worked or lived where it was an issue, because I’d never want to witness a poor soul OD and be unable to help them. That would haunt me. My instinct would be to save them.

In the abstract, however, I do recognize that the problem is overwhelming and opioid addicts aren’t typically phased at all by a near-death OD. Many will OD over and over and over again until eventually no one is around to revive them and they die.

In some respects it seems almost cruel to revive them when the *real* therapeutic interventions they need aren’t being made available. It’s like giving someone just enough food to keep them alive, but not enough to ever feel sated or have the energy to do anything, such that they’re kept in a perpetual state of starvation. In a sense it might be better to let them die rather than keep them in their purgatorial state. The social safety net is so weak and torn. But as tempting as it is to dismiss people as hopeless addicts, they’re all individuals and most have family and friends who love them and would be devastated if they died. All have the potential, no matter how slight, to recover and go on to lead meaningful, productive lives.

[quote] All have the potential, no matter how slight, to recover and go on to lead meaningful, productive lives.

Not really.

I would call 911 and that's it. If people die of overdose, then it was time for them to go.

[quote]because I’d never want to witness a poor soul OD and be unable to help them. That would haunt me. My instinct would be to save them.

Why would it haunt you? Did you turned them into addicts or something? NO, it would leave a bad impressionable memory, but there would be no guilt because you had nothing to do with their deaths.

r17 this wasn't an essay question

I would have to be absolutely sure that I couldn't somehow be legally liable. Dealbreaker.

Fuck them! We can't afford this. Let them go. They're selfish fucks who will bleed you dry if given the chance. Save our money for children and those who give to society not take, take, take. Buh bye!

Two people OD’d in their car in my local Walmart parking lot this summer. Someone OD’d in the parking lot of the apartment complex I used to live in a couple years ago. Never thought I would ever be faced with situations like this, but tbh I have no sympathy. Most addicts are users and manipulators. Save their life today and all you do is give them another day to use and OD. If I came across someone who had OD’d I’d call 911, but wouldn’t try to administer aid. I honestly don’t think a junkies life is worth saving.

Fuck those West Virginian cretin Suboxone addicts right into a tinbox pile of ashes. We need to lose them toute de suite. Why is anyone paying taxes to spend it on them?

R23 agree. The users and manipulators that don't give a fuck about you. Your needs and wants don't ever make it the equation. They're so self righteous while going through withdrawal. Sleeping for days, lumping around. Hoarding money and supplies for themselves. Factor in some inbred genetics and they can't die fast enough. Parasitic trash. Eew.

I never fail to be amused by the hypocrites of DL.

You lose your shit over anyone not agreeing with your pet causes and call out others as racists and bigots.

But when it comes to a white addict with mental issues(as all addicts do have) you say fuck 'em and let them die. They deserve it.

[quote]In some respects it seems almost cruel to revive them when the *real* therapeutic interventions they need aren’t being made available.

THIS.

Question for the library workers---Are you fucking crazy!?!?! No one has mentioned fentanyl and carfentanil. LEOs and paramedics need hazmat suits, many have already been hospitalized and you are going to take that risk? FUCK NO.

Our police here (SW Ontario) are in an ongoing war with politicians and municipal officials over this. Right now they are insisting that not only must they carry Narcan and assist addicts, they will be investigated for every incident involving an OD where the person dies, or anything goes seriously wrong, i.e, they injure the person while assisting them. They are very close to open defiance, and I don't blame them. I'm not a conservative or knee-jerk LEO supporter, either.

well r26 this is a bitchery site. Warm and friendly caring for others is not what this place is about.

Naloxone is a band-aid for drug addicts. The government won't spend money on expensive rehabs and I don't blame them for this. Things like methadone and Suboxone are objectionable because they are legal drug use. I have not seen anything really work for opioid addiction. Unless you are required by law to carry and administer Naloxone, I would be very careful. The addict could be dead or die anyway, or spit or vomit all over you, or you could get poked by some used needle. They might have HIV and their secretions could get into your eye, as happened to one of my colleagues in the ER once. She spent the next three years waiting to die because in the old days, we did not have good treatment for HIV.

And if lawyers can make money off of this, they will swoop down on all of us like vultures. Of course, you have a choice in the matter but know what you're doing and all the ways things could go wrong. The government is putting its' responsibility on its' citizens shoulders.

All we got was prison when it was a black folks' "epidemic."

R-30 You are right. I have worked in many methadone clinics in New York and the black addicts did get prison. Drug use was a crime, not some public health crisis. Frankly, nobody gave a shit. I'm surprised how the government is hyperventilating over the current crisis. I remember those old days well.

R1 is the reason why no one called the cops when they saw you get gaybashed.

R 29 up there is OP(me) too. I've seen all this in ERs. I would get sued in a second by some lawyer just because I'm a doctor and it's very easy to sue us.

Yet the price of insulin and epi pens goes up and up.

Ask your veterinarian to keep a supply on hand; I read about a puppy that swallowed a glassine envelope found on the street and it took a while before the owner and the vet realized the cause of the poor little guy's suffering. Fortunately, the dog survived and is doing well,

Just talked to a lady on my block whose dog got marijuana poisoning by eating something off the street. She said it was expensive to treat it and the little dog was in the hospital.

We hope that those responsible for the crimes described by r35 and r36 meet with very painful and horrible ends.

I know it sounds insensitive but a lot of these junkies have overdosed more than once and it kind of seems like they want to die so maybe just let them. They just keep hurting other people, destroying property and wasting money. Drug addicts do terrible things to their children and will steal from elderly relatives. They live off of tax payer money. If someone wants to get better they have to be willing to fight. I know a few ex drug addicts who got clean on their own.

About 2 years ago my 20 year old son was a homeless intravenous heroin user in Baltimore. One day he got a batch with fentanyl and overdosed in the parking lot of a convenience store. He would be dead if not for the incredible kindness shown by a good Samaritan who called 911. EMTs got there within seconds and administered the shot that saved him. He has been clean since then and restored to his wonderful, beautiful, hilarious, intelligent self. On the off chance any of the people who were involved are reading this, thank you beyond words for saving a tall. good-looking, brown haired and brown eyed boy who surely would have died otherwise. His life wasn't worthless and people like you are what makes the world go round.

Reading headlines about the horrific crimes committed by these drug zombies, NO.

I’m a parent. I really struggle with this question. What if one of MY kids were a hopeless addict? How would I feel then? And I don’t fool myself that it couldn’t happen to one of my kids...

I don’t know.

I’m a medical professional and I don’t carry it around. Sorry, I’m retired. I’ve already saved a shitload of lives. Now it’s someone else’s turn.

As a litigation lawyer, you're opening yourself up to liability intervening in a situation of which you are not a party to. The public has NO responsibility to act.

As I teach in torts, if a child is drowning in the ocean and you have the skills to save her, you are under no legal obligation to do so. You can stand there and watch to no liability. If you intervene and something happens, well, you've just dragged yourself into the situation as a party to a suit.

What if you administer too much, too little of the drug and the person is damaged for life in a coma. You'd be opening yourself up to a suit for negligence (" the defendant was not trained yet administered a dangerous drug to my client, and but for this improper administration, my client would be alive and well today. We demand $$$$$$$$$$$$$ in damages for loss of life, loss of consortium, lost future earnings, and future medical expenses."

I misclicked and meant to select no.

It is NOT easy to sue doctors. If you work in the medical field and you think addicts should die off, you are the worthless person.

r44 I think r41 gets a pass; s/he's done more than ones fair share. The medical pro above is also retired, so s/he is not going to have an association or hospital to fight any litigation.

And it's not EMTs and doctors who are most at risk of litigation, it's LEOs, community workers, library staff, etc. who are not trained and not designated to render aid. It's not as simple as a spray in the nose of a calm or unconscious person in a clean, safe environment. And they don't just magically come to and thank you either. They're often disoriented and combative, and it can take more than one dose. The 1% pseudo-liberal media has seriously distorted the truth on this because it doesn't fit their narrative.

At the end of the day, the user has to decide if s/he wants to stop. That core decision is the basis for everything else. Even a proper rehab system won't fix that. Meanwhile, addicts need to be isolated and kept from destroying communities, which they definitely do. I'm not going to risk an OD myself from cross-contamination, and unless governments address the issue and fund proper rehabs, then they will die. It's not something I'd wish on anyone, but given the current situation, it's what will happen.

R24, there was just a news story on NPR about voters in WV. They still mostly LOVE the orange turd. Fuck em.

"You lose your shit over...your pet causes..."

Of course. My pet causes me great happiness.

I don't see why this is so controversial. No one is being forced to carry it or otherwise act as a Good Samaritan. If people such as an addict's parents, or the addict himself, want to have naloxone on hand, fine. If you don't want to be involved, you don't have to be.

Yep. At our clinic, when a patient uses multiple opioids combined with benzos,say, Narcan is given to the family to use in case of respiratory arrest. Too may CNS depressants, and a swig from a bottle of Nyquil can kill.

There is also the Holy Trinity - carisoprodol, a benzo, and an opioid.

More like the hole-y trinity.

[quote] Too may CNS depressants, and a swig from a bottle of Nyquil can kill.

True. When they list multiple drugs found in a dead celebrity’s tox screen, you’ll often find Benadryl. You hear that the celebrity had a cold when they died. That Benadryl may have been what sent them to the morgue. It was the tipping point after the celeb took his or her usual mixture of drugs

r48 see r5.

Police also don't want to administer it because where I am they are investigated by the SIU if anything happens. They are concerned about their safety with both fentanyl and carfentanil in our region's drugs.

Some of the drugs, like fentanyl, are so strong that it takes up to 20 narcan nasal sprays to work.

Now that narcan has become popular, the drug company that makes it drove up the price, of course.

Narcan is EXTREME safe. If you gave it to a baby, NOTHING would happen. It just blocks narcotics receptors.

R32, try having junkies living next door in YOUR nice neighborhood, doing their dealing, fighting, drug-driving, prostitution, thieving, bringing more addicts and convicts to move in with them. Have them come onto your property and sweet talk YOUR elderly mom, trying to get her to let them in and give them a copy of the house keys. Try listening to their mom blame it all on the government, for not giving her kids SSDI on account of their addictions and for sending her kids to cheap rehab instead of someplace nice, like Hazelden, where they'd be able to hook up with higher-class addicts.

And then see how much compassion you still have for people who've been given endless chances and reject them, preferring to lie, cheat, and steal. Let's see how you feel after their lifestyle of choice affects YOU personally

I wish somebody would give me a break like all these junkies get repeatedly.

People should be allowed to buy sell consume produce anything they want so long as they don't bother us and we don't have to pay for it.

They made their beds.

When did it become socially acceptable to be a drug addict?

I don't want anyone to die. But honestly, isn't death one of the risks of being an addict in the first place? Isn't an OD death one of the reasons NOT to become an addict? Isn't possible death one of the downsides of being an addict?

r54 Yes but did you see the size of the needle in OP's post? Would you feel comfortable jabbing a complete stranger and then hanging around when they wake? Expect a violent reaction when they do. You will NOT get a thank you.

What to do for the children of addicts?

I find it interesting that all these stories focus on the "medical" start to their addictions. These stories always start by telling the reader about some accident that led to painkillers.

But, the first step is identifying the problem. They're heroine junkies. It doesn't really matter how it started. It doesn't really matter what they were prior. Today, now, they're no superior to the junkies shooting up in abandoned buildings for whom there is little sympathy.

The idea that these folks deserve any more consideration than your run-of-the-mill junkie is ridiculous.

I wonder whether the wider availability of naloxone has emboldened junkies to more reckless activity. I wonder what the increase or decrease in related health problems is. We've seen the rise of STDs along with the wider usage of prep. I wonder whether a similar phenomenon has occurred with heroine usage.

R62 Heroine = female hero. I believe the word you are looking for is HEROIN.

"I don't see why this is so controversial. No one is being forced to carry it or otherwise act as a Good Samaritan"

I thought the whole point of this story and this thread was that police and fucking LIBRARIANS are being forced to give narcan as part of their job.

The librarians voluntarily give Narcan. They asked local police to train them. They aren’t being forced to use narcan by anybody.

[quote] I thought the whole point of this story and this thread was that police and fucking LIBRARIANS are being forced to give narcan as part of their job.

Obviously, you didn’t read the story, otherwise you wouldn’t come away thinking “the whole point of the story” was that librarians are being forced to give narcan.

r66 see r5.

S/he didn't sound to me like a choice had been offered. In this day and age, any variant of "management is training employees" means they really don't have a choice.

And LEOs absolutely are being forced to give it, and in some jurisdictions they are in open conflict with their municipalities.

R67, don't law enforcement officers get basic life-saving training?

The problem is the pressure which is being put on ordinary people to carry around Narcan if "you expect to be in the VICINITY of opiate addicts". Then there is the unspoken pressure which results from this kind of statement by the Surgeon General. You could be the only huge asshole in a library or supermarket or 7-11 who refused to help a dying person. Not much fun at a job. Imagine the dirty looks from other employees and even Emergency personnel. Say when they show up after the addict is dead and ask you if you "helped them". So now you're as bad as a murderer because the EMTs are forced to "narcanize"(a new word I just made up) but you are a lesser human being because you just let someone die.

These are all unspoken complications which will affect everybody. Suppose I'm the only person in a group of workers who agreed to carry Narcan. Will everyone come running to me if an addicts drops to the floor? What if I refuse? Will I be hated and scorned? I can think up so many horrible scenarios. I used to carry my Epi-Pen with me but never expected everyone, or even one person around me to have it. I keep candy in my bag and water in case someone faints in the heat or by low blood sugar/pressure, which I tend to do myself. But that is a joke compared to if an addict faints near me. If I gave them water or candy, they could choke etc. etc. A splash of water on my face wakes me up in a couple of seconds. That's easy. And why are they doing it in stores and supermarkets and libraries? I really don't get why they "do" their ODs in public places. One could wait to get to their home or a room or some other place where addicts gather, but why is this happening in public places where commercial transactions take place? Supermarkets? Why?

The cynical answer would be that they would be saved to enjoy the "high" another day if they are in a public place. The homeless mentally ill get nothing here in LA. It's even illegal in some places to give them food. It would make more sense to me to give a little food to the people who I see on the street, sick, disheveled and dirty. The argument is that then they will get used to handouts and not take help from the "appropriate sources", which don't really help anyway. So it's not as simple as "there's no pressure on you". There is a lot of pressure and liability as the tort law teacher mentioned above. Not as easy as spraying Narcan on an OD from far away and then running away yourself to avoid unexpected consequences.

If THEY don’t want to live, why are we saving them?

I'm quite convinced that they (the addicts) DO want to live, but ONLY if their lives are tolerable and enjoyable. While most of us have something or the other to live for, addicts live for the high, and to avoid the withdrawal. Even after detox, most of them go back to using. They do not have happy, fulfilling lives.

A few years back, I decided I was going to get the special license to be able to prescribe Suboxone. A couple(married couple) had just become my patients and had somehow convinced me that they were too groggy from their Suboxone and needed Adderall. The man had a high security clearance with some govt. agency.

I broke the news of my soon-to-be Suboxone license to the pharmacists in my building. They panicked and begged me not to do so because "the line of limos will stretch up and down the boulevard." They said the demand for Suboxone was as bad as the demand for heroin and the pharmacists said we all would live to regret my Suboxone superpowers. So I dropped that idea and informed the addict couple that since I won't be able to give them Suboxone, I should not be giving them amphetamines. Guess how that went??

Their personalities changed in a minute as they sent me on the biggest guilt trip ever. And they wouldn't stop. I considered running out of my office, because they were groggy and slow and I am little and fast. They didn't threaten me but acted as if I was killing them if I did not give them Adderall. Lucky for me, the pharmacists had access to the patients' other meds and if someone was on opiates or something else dangerous was going on, I could put a stop to it.

Another time, a rich young man, referred by other patients, came in with a bunch of x-Rays, asking for a huge dose of opiates for back pain. I told him I did not know how to read X-Rays but he said I was dooming him to a life of pain. I told him I could not give out opiates because I was a shrink. He said "so I guess I have to live in pain because you won't help me". This went on for too long and he wanted to pay me in cash. Well, I did manage to get him out of my office but this kind of thing happened a lot. Most docs I knew did not want the Suboxone license. Maybe things are different now. But Suboxone gives enough of a high to be very desirable to addicts. It is not marketed like that, though.

Maybe it is the next Methadone.