In looking over the thread I see that there are some good arguments for distributing this antidote and OTOH for keeping it out of the hands of amateurs; however, I think the benefits of distribution clearly outweigh the risks. I have to say, though, that the arguments offered by the government rep are less draconian or simplistic than the tone of this thread imply. There is a personal parallel here. It is my own (bad) choice for which I am completely responsible, but being a diabetic I have drugs available which help to control my blood sugar. Since I can "get away" with it to some extent (and far less than I delude myself into believing) I eat sugary junk foods. When I recently had to go without my meds for a week or so (times is tough) I had to be far more careful about what I ate - and I really felt the difference! I do not think that the arguments presented here suggest abusers "deserve" OD or unpleasant side effects, but rather that providing them with the false sense of security this antidote might give is dangerous in itself - and I agree with that. It isn't a moral judgement, but a rational look at the potential unintended consequences of making this drug available to the general public.
That said, I think the overall choice should still rest with the individual - even though that individual might not be entirely capable of making good choices. After all, right or wrong this person is choosing to abuse hard drugs. Anyone that stupid is likely to make bad decisions anyway. He might choose to take more chances with the "lifeboat" of an antidote handy - and that could kill him. But an overdose will kill him either way. If he has the antidote immediatey available, it may well save his life. I think the ratio of saved lives to lost lives in this scenario is likely to be favorable. We have an awful lot of drugs on the market capable of killing people - and I take a few myself. The rationale is that the benefits outweigh the risks. I happen to subscribe to that theory.
As for the side-debate about HPV vaccine, I think the truth lies between Brass's position and the position of those advocating the choice issue. One objection to HPV vaccine has to do with making it mandatory, and some people object to mandatory vaccinations in general - since they often have bad and even deadly side-effects. Many object to mandatory vaccinations on civil libertarian grounds - and I agree with them. Those people may or may not be concerned with the "morality" issue. Some of the latter group would no doubt volunteer to use the vaccine if they happen to be sexually active, yet still disagree with forcing children to get the vaccine. OTOH there are those who would object simply on moral grounds, and some of those might even object to allowing the vaccine at all. That latter group might well be of the mindset that those who get the cancer "deserve" it and they would fall justly under Brass's condemnation.
But here is where Brass's analogy falls short. There is a fundamental difference of perspective between those who object to making something mandatory (whether or not that objection is grounded in moral values) and those who object to making something available. The former group advocates choice and the latter objects to it. There are legitimate reasons for both groups to take the positions they took - and they are not the simplistic viewpoints this thread seems to suggest. Fighting against mandatory vaccination is the right thing to do. The government should not be allowed to force someone to take medications without their consent. Questioning whether the distribution of a particular drug may actually make a bad problem worse is also the right thing to do. The road to hell is paved with simplistic assumptions. In the end, I think both the HPV vaccine and the OD antidote should be available but not mandatory.
As to assuming that someone "deserves" what he gets, the AIDS virus is the best example of that mindset. There were those who felt that we needed no cure, because the only "cure" necessary was appropriate behavior. There wasn't a question of mandatory drugs, since nobody suggested that, and there was no issue of the treatment being worse than the disease, because NOTHING is worse than the disease. Many suggested that those who get it were being punished by God and that this was a result of their own behavior. My response to that was always that if someone forgot to look both ways before he crossed the street and got hit, I would still do everything in my power to save him. Just because he did something stupid does not relieve me of my responsibility to do what I can to help him. That's ultimately the way I feel about this issue. Unless compelling evidence can be given that making this available would cause more problems than it would solve, it makes no sense to deny this lifesaving option.
