How To Write An Argumentative Essay On Naloxone
Adam T. Bright
Professor Valerie Tober
English 102 Effectiveness in Writing
Providing a Second Chance: An Argument for the Expanded Use of Naloxone
What if there was a way to greatly reduce the number of drug overdose deaths in the United States? Imagine the difference that something possessing high efficacy for combating the symptoms of overdose, combined with ease of use, would have on the lives of those often neglected members of society who suffer from substance abuse. Luckily such a treatment, known as Naloxone, has already been developed and is seeing use in medical systems across the world. Through the expanded use and availability of Naloxone the United States would be able to achieve a significant reversal on the rising trend of overdose deaths within the country. …show more content…
In 2013 (the most recently available data) the Center for Disease Control’s annual census found that 43,982 deaths occurred within the United States due to opiate overdose (Wheeler, Jones, Gilbert, & Davidson). This would place opiate overdose as the ninth most likely cause of death within the country. This should not be surprising however as this would be the twelfth consecutive year in with overdose deaths have risen within the United States. The unfortunate reality is that a significant number of these deaths could have been prevented with timely intervention. In a majority of the reported cases, had Naloxone been introduced earlier in the overdose timeline improved patient outcomes, most notably the prevention of cardiac arrest, would have been the most likely result (Albert, Chaplain, Sanford, Dasgupta, Graham, & Lovette 80).
Developed in the 1960s, Naloxone works as a pure opioid antagonist. This antagonizing action is used to counter the effects of opiates particularly in instances of overdose. Naloxone has been proven to possess a tremendously high efficacy in reversing respiratory depression, restoring central nervous system function, and combating hypotension (low blood pressure). By targeting the body’s μ-opioid receptors Naloxone is able to effectively reverse the effects of and continually prevent opiates from acting on the body’s vital systems (Wheeler et al.). These characteristics, in addition to its incredibly quick reaction time, make Naloxone the front-line choice for treating narcotic overdose.
While typically administered intravenously or intramuscularly in the clinical setting, Naloxone is also available in the form of a nasal atomizer. This form of Naloxone is exceedingly easy to administer as it only involves a two-step process. To administer through the nasal route an individual would only need to screw a vial into a syringe and then deliver half of the medication to each of the patient’s nostrils. This simplicity of use indicates that citizens, specifically the segments of the population prone to substance abuse, could be easily and quickly educated on how to administer the treatment (Wolfe and Bernstone 144). With this in mind it would be reasonable to envision needle exchange programs also providing doses of Naloxone as a means of compassionate outreach.
Traditionally Naloxone has only been available to citizens outside of a clinical setting through a prescription. This is a travesty as patients are often past the point of assistance by time they are reached by medical personnel. To compound matters some potential beneficiaries of the medication have stated that they avoid seeking a prescription since laws is some states require they are entered into substance abuser tracking systems (Maxwell, Bigg, Stanczykiewicz, & Carlberg-Racich 91). While there is nothing inherently wrong with tracking this information for medical purposes, it is often perceived as possessing the potential for punitive action and therefore avoided. Fortunately some of the more progressive jurisdictions, such as New York, are introducing legislation that would allow for individuals to obtain Naloxone without first seeing a physician (Gaston, Best, Manning, & Day 7). If this trend was to continue one could expect to see an increase on the estimated 10,000 plus lives the CDC estimates Naloxone saves per year (Wheeler et al.).
Opponents of expanding access to Naloxone typically rely upon tired positions that are relics of the United States failed war on drugs. Critics argue that allowing access to an “overdose cure” is essentially condoning drug abuse. This fallacious statement has no grounding in facts, and is a dangerous line of thinking that unnecessarily endangers lives. In fact studies have shown that Naloxone lowers the abuse potential for intravenous drug users (Bowman et al. 570). Furthermore, the stance that by increasing its availability one is condoning drug use completely overlooks the primary purpose of such availability, saving as many lives as possible.
More compassionate yet economically minded critics might point to the cost associated with expanding access. Admittedly there would be a cost associated with expanded access, but that cost would be significantly lower than expected and would be tremendously mitigated by the savings found in the lower frequency of pricier life-saving interventions. A dose of nasally administered Naloxone cost approximately $20 while the average cost of treating a cardiac arrest can approach $300,000 (Bowman et al. 568). This is not to mention the savings that would be found in non-medical costs such as funeral expenses or police investigations. When taken in this holistic view it is clear that expanded use of Naloxone would actually provide communities with a lower financial burden in treating overdose patients.
Opponent’s final argument centers on the idea that it is potentially dangerous to introduce a controlled substance into a community.
In theory anyone can empathize with this sentiment, however those fears are unfounded when looking at Naloxone. The CDC has determined that the drug possesses no potential for abuse and has only very minor side effects (Wheeler et al.). Additionally studies indicate that the treatment shows no signs of causing long term health effects (Bowman, Eiserman, Beletsky, Stancliff, & Bruce 569). Providing communities with education on the drug should alleviate any health concerns they may have about Naloxone.
As the United States finds itself approaching near epidemic levels of opiate overdose deaths per year, Naloxone stands as a true, almost common sense tool to combat this rise. Prevention will always be the first choice to prevent drug abuse, but when that method fails Naloxone should be available to minimize the damage. Naloxone stands as a treatment with no real negatives and enormous lifesaving potential. Opiate overdoses are a tragic possibility for many individuals in this country, with greater availability Naloxone could provide more of them with a second chance at
life.
Works Cited
Albert, Su, Fred W. Chaplain, Catherine K. Sanford, Nabarun Dasgupta, Jim Graham, and Beth Lovette. "Project Lazarus: Community-Based Overdose Prevention in Rural North Carolina." Pain Medicine 12.2 (2011): 77-85. Wiley Online Library. Web. 3 July 2015.
Bowman, Sarah, Julie Eiserman, Leo Beletsky, Sharron Stancliff, and R. Douglas Bruce. "Reducing the Health Consequences of Opioid Addiction in Primary Care." The American Journal of Medicine 126.7 (2013): 565-571. Web. 3 July 2015.
Gaston, Romina L., David Best, Victoria Manning, and Ed Day. "Can We Prevent Drug Related Deaths by Training Opioid Users to Recognize and Manage Overdoses?" Harm Reduction Journal 6.26 (2009): 1-8. Web. 3 July 2015.
Maxwell, Sarz, Dan Bigg, Karen Stanczykiewicz, and Suzanne Carlberg-Racich. "Prescribing Naloxone to Actively Injecting Heroin Users." Journal of Addictive Diseases 25.3 (2006): 89-96. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 4 July 2015.
Wheeler, Eliza, T. Stephen Jones, Michael K. Gilbert, and Peter J. Davidson. "Opioid Overdose Prevention Programs Providing Naloxone to Laypersons — United States, 2015." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 June 2015. Web. 3 July 2015.
Wolfe, Timothy R., and Tony Bernstone. "Intranasal Drug Delivery: An Alternative to Intravenous Administration in Selected Emergency Cases." Journal of Emergency Nursing 30.02 (2004): 141-147. Web. 3 July 2015.
Professor Valerie Tober
English 102 Effectiveness in Writing
Providing a Second Chance: An Argument for the Expanded Use of Naloxone
What if there was a way to greatly reduce the number of drug overdose deaths in the United States? Imagine the difference that something possessing high efficacy for combating the symptoms of overdose, combined with ease of use, would have on the lives of those often neglected members of society who suffer from substance abuse. Luckily such a treatment, known as Naloxone, has already been developed and is seeing use in medical systems across the world. Through the expanded use and availability of Naloxone the United States would be able to achieve a significant reversal on the rising trend of overdose deaths within the country. …show more content…
In 2013 (the most recently available data) the Center for Disease Control’s annual census found that 43,982 deaths occurred within the United States due to opiate overdose (Wheeler, Jones, Gilbert, & Davidson). This would place opiate overdose as the ninth most likely cause of death within the country. This should not be surprising however as this would be the twelfth consecutive year in with overdose deaths have risen within the United States. The unfortunate reality is that a significant number of these deaths could have been prevented with timely intervention. In a majority of the reported cases, had Naloxone been introduced earlier in the overdose timeline improved patient outcomes, most notably the prevention of cardiac arrest, would have been the most likely result (Albert, Chaplain, Sanford, Dasgupta, Graham, & Lovette 80).
Developed in the 1960s, Naloxone works as a pure opioid antagonist. This antagonizing action is used to counter the effects of opiates particularly in instances of overdose. Naloxone has been proven to possess a tremendously high efficacy in reversing respiratory depression, restoring central nervous system function, and combating hypotension (low blood pressure). By targeting the body’s μ-opioid receptors Naloxone is able to effectively reverse the effects of and continually prevent opiates from acting on the body’s vital systems (Wheeler et al.). These characteristics, in addition to its incredibly quick reaction time, make Naloxone the front-line choice for treating narcotic overdose.
While typically administered intravenously or intramuscularly in the clinical setting, Naloxone is also available in the form of a nasal atomizer. This form of Naloxone is exceedingly easy to administer as it only involves a two-step process. To administer through the nasal route an individual would only need to screw a vial into a syringe and then deliver half of the medication to each of the patient’s nostrils. This simplicity of use indicates that citizens, specifically the segments of the population prone to substance abuse, could be easily and quickly educated on how to administer the treatment (Wolfe and Bernstone 144). With this in mind it would be reasonable to envision needle exchange programs also providing doses of Naloxone as a means of compassionate outreach.
Traditionally Naloxone has only been available to citizens outside of a clinical setting through a prescription. This is a travesty as patients are often past the point of assistance by time they are reached by medical personnel. To compound matters some potential beneficiaries of the medication have stated that they avoid seeking a prescription since laws is some states require they are entered into substance abuser tracking systems (Maxwell, Bigg, Stanczykiewicz, & Carlberg-Racich 91). While there is nothing inherently wrong with tracking this information for medical purposes, it is often perceived as possessing the potential for punitive action and therefore avoided. Fortunately some of the more progressive jurisdictions, such as New York, are introducing legislation that would allow for individuals to obtain Naloxone without first seeing a physician (Gaston, Best, Manning, & Day 7). If this trend was to continue one could expect to see an increase on the estimated 10,000 plus lives the CDC estimates Naloxone saves per year (Wheeler et al.).
Opponents of expanding access to Naloxone typically rely upon tired positions that are relics of the United States failed war on drugs. Critics argue that allowing access to an “overdose cure” is essentially condoning drug abuse. This fallacious statement has no grounding in facts, and is a dangerous line of thinking that unnecessarily endangers lives. In fact studies have shown that Naloxone lowers the abuse potential for intravenous drug users (Bowman et al. 570). Furthermore, the stance that by increasing its availability one is condoning drug use completely overlooks the primary purpose of such availability, saving as many lives as possible.
More compassionate yet economically minded critics might point to the cost associated with expanding access. Admittedly there would be a cost associated with expanded access, but that cost would be significantly lower than expected and would be tremendously mitigated by the savings found in the lower frequency of pricier life-saving interventions. A dose of nasally administered Naloxone cost approximately $20 while the average cost of treating a cardiac arrest can approach $300,000 (Bowman et al. 568). This is not to mention the savings that would be found in non-medical costs such as funeral expenses or police investigations. When taken in this holistic view it is clear that expanded use of Naloxone would actually provide communities with a lower financial burden in treating overdose patients.
Opponent’s final argument centers on the idea that it is potentially dangerous to introduce a controlled substance into a community.
In theory anyone can empathize with this sentiment, however those fears are unfounded when looking at Naloxone. The CDC has determined that the drug possesses no potential for abuse and has only very minor side effects (Wheeler et al.). Additionally studies indicate that the treatment shows no signs of causing long term health effects (Bowman, Eiserman, Beletsky, Stancliff, & Bruce 569). Providing communities with education on the drug should alleviate any health concerns they may have about Naloxone.
As the United States finds itself approaching near epidemic levels of opiate overdose deaths per year, Naloxone stands as a true, almost common sense tool to combat this rise. Prevention will always be the first choice to prevent drug abuse, but when that method fails Naloxone should be available to minimize the damage. Naloxone stands as a treatment with no real negatives and enormous lifesaving potential. Opiate overdoses are a tragic possibility for many individuals in this country, with greater availability Naloxone could provide more of them with a second chance at
life.
Works Cited
Albert, Su, Fred W. Chaplain, Catherine K. Sanford, Nabarun Dasgupta, Jim Graham, and Beth Lovette. "Project Lazarus: Community-Based Overdose Prevention in Rural North Carolina." Pain Medicine 12.2 (2011): 77-85. Wiley Online Library. Web. 3 July 2015.
Bowman, Sarah, Julie Eiserman, Leo Beletsky, Sharron Stancliff, and R. Douglas Bruce. "Reducing the Health Consequences of Opioid Addiction in Primary Care." The American Journal of Medicine 126.7 (2013): 565-571. Web. 3 July 2015.
Gaston, Romina L., David Best, Victoria Manning, and Ed Day. "Can We Prevent Drug Related Deaths by Training Opioid Users to Recognize and Manage Overdoses?" Harm Reduction Journal 6.26 (2009): 1-8. Web. 3 July 2015.
Maxwell, Sarz, Dan Bigg, Karen Stanczykiewicz, and Suzanne Carlberg-Racich. "Prescribing Naloxone to Actively Injecting Heroin Users." Journal of Addictive Diseases 25.3 (2006): 89-96. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 4 July 2015.
Wheeler, Eliza, T. Stephen Jones, Michael K. Gilbert, and Peter J. Davidson. "Opioid Overdose Prevention Programs Providing Naloxone to Laypersons — United States, 2015." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 June 2015. Web. 3 July 2015.
Wolfe, Timothy R., and Tony Bernstone. "Intranasal Drug Delivery: An Alternative to Intravenous Administration in Selected Emergency Cases." Journal of Emergency Nursing 30.02 (2004): 141-147. Web. 3 July 2015.