I would be willing to bet the same people against this are the same ones who are against their daughters getting that vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.
You mean those "people" who want the CHOICE to vaccinate their daughters vs being mandated they be vaccinated for something largely unecessary. And no, those wouldn't be the same people either who think life threatening overdoses are a good thing, either >:( So, don't bet the house
Oh sure, now the people who were against the vaccinations from the get-go say it is all about choice and "freedom" but the fact is that the original reason was that the threat of cancer was a deterrent to pre-marital sex.
So, re-write history now but the facts stand.
>>Oh sure, now the people who were against the vaccinations from the get-go say it is all about choice and "freedom" but the fact is that the original reason was that the threat of cancer was a deterrent to pre-marital sex.<<
Really? Do you have some quotes from these people?
<chuckle>
Come on brass, it's hardly the same thing. This vaccine doesn't protect from all STD's, so saying the only way to truly avoid them is abstinence, isn't saying "don't have sex you'll get cancer."
You mean those "people" who want the CHOICE to vaccinate their daughters vs being mandated they be vaccinated for something largely unecessary. And no, those wouldn't be the same people either who think life threatening overdoses are a good thing, either >:( So, don't bet the house
Oh sure, now the people who were against the vaccinations from the get-go say it is all about choice and "freedom" but the fact is that the original reason was that the threat of cancer was a deterrent to pre-marital sex. So, re-write history now but the facts stand.
>>But some people think this is a bad idea. Some people think life-threatening overdoses serve as a preventative to drug use and as a means of convincing people to stop using drugs.<<
Excuse me, but who the hell are these people?
| But Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, opposes the use of Narcan in overdose-rescue programs. "First of all, I don't agree with giving an opioid antidote to non-medical professionals. That's No. 1," she says. "I just don't think that's good public health policy." Madras says drug users aren't likely to be competent to deal with an overdose emergency. More importantly, she says, Narcan kits may actually encourage drug abusers to keep using heroin because they know overdosing isn't as likely. Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug user's motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment. "Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras says. |
Naloxone has been distributed as part of emergency kits to heroin users, and this has been shown to reduce rates of fatal overdose. Projects of this type are under way in San Francisco, New Mexico, Philadelphia, New York State, Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago, with pilot projects started in Scotland in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone
The patent for Naloxone has expired and the drug is currently available in various generic forms.
Abrupt postoperative reversal of opioid depression may result in nausea, vomiting, sweating, tremulousness, tachycardia, increased blood pressure, seizures, ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation, pulmonary edema, and cardiac arrest which may result in death.
I would be willing to bet the same people against this are the same ones who are against their daughters getting that vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.
We present the preliminary results of two pilot schemes to provide take home naloxone to opiate users.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7291/895
This is the first published report of lives saved directly by the provision of take home naloxone. The drug was generally used appropriately. In only one case out of 34 was its use inappropriate, with two of doubtful benefit. No unexpected adverse effects were reported.
Ready prepared syringes of naloxone typically cost ?3.30-6.70 per 400 ?g. Since 10% of distributed doses were actually given, each use cost around ?33-67. Even if lives were saved on only 10% of these occasions, then each would have been saved at a drug cost of ?330-670.
I do not think that the arguments presented here suggest abusers "deserve" OD or unpleasant side effects,