REJECTING A METHADONE CLINIC – COMPASSION BE DAMNED:

that seems to sum up the sentiments of residents in Bustletown, a corner of the City of Brotherly Love, who responded with “thunderous applause” when a proposal to establish a methadone clinic was withdrawn in the face of vehement opposition. Apparently none of the “jubilant residents” (500 strong!) nor their elected officials who participated in the community meeting seem to care a whit for those who desperately want and need access to potentially life-saving medical care. It seems most unlikely that the namesake of the Anne Frank School, where this meeting was held, would have joined in the jubilation. Full story click here:

NIMBY WINS, PATIENTS LOSE - AGAIN...

This time in Northeast, PA (suburb of the City of Brotherly Love), where "plans for a methadone clinic...were quickly abandoned after heavy protest from residents. "The only resident quoted explained," "I have small children, I want to protect my children, I want my children to be safe." A commonly expressed concern, but one that is difficult to reconcile with either logic or experience, since - we believe - there has not been a single report of harm to children associated with the operation of a methadone program anywhere in America over the course of more than four decades.

For the full story click here

ONTARIO METHADONE PATIENTS DEMAND CONFIDENTIALITY:

Demonstrators in Toronto protested rules of the Ont. College of Physicians and surgeons that gives access to their personal information without assurances of how that information may be used. They also objected to the demand that "patients submit to weekly urine tests in the presence of a clinic worker or security camera." (Meanwhile, NY Sate operates a "methadone regiustry" that routinely violates US Federal regulations governing such registries - specifics on request). Full Ontario story: Toronto Star, 14 Fe 09

STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF “HARM REDUCTION” FROM THE HIGHEST OF AUTHORITIES:

The UNAIDS Director on 12 Feb wrote the chairperson of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs: “UNAIDS, including our Cosponsors and in particular UNODC and WHO, have amassed a considerable body of strong and consistent evidence on the effectiveness of harm reduction approaches. Conversely, there is no convincing evidence of major negative consequences of such interventions.” In addition, the Director of The Global Fund on 6 Feb. wrote the Chairperson: “...harm reduction is an essential, evidence-based AIDS response,” and mentions specifically “access to treatment, clean needles, opiate substitution therapy and a comprehensive package of services...”

STEREOTYPING:

Anything to suggest attitudes and practices have changed since a 1990 study in Florida? Anonymous urine screening for illicit drugs was performed on 715 pregnant women, roughly half in a public clinic and half seen in private physician offices. The frequency of positive urine results was essentially the same for whites and blacks (15.4% and 14.1%). During the time period of the survey, however, reports to health authorities for "substance abuse during pregnancy" were ten times greater for blacks than for whites, "and poor women were more likely than others to be reported." (Chasnoff et al. NEJM 322(17):1202-1206, 1990)

ADDICITON TREATMENT CENTER PAYS $20,000 TO SETTLE DISCRIMINATION CASE:

A counselor in excellent standing was fired when it became known she was and for some time had been a methadone maintenance patient. A tragic example of the viscious stigma against methadone treatment even ?(conceivably especially) to be found among those who purport to be professionals in this field. For full story click here

MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA PERPETUATES STIGMA:

The NY Times is to be commended for its article (27 Jan) about "the epidemic that wasn't" - dispelling much of the misinformation that has led to prosecution and punishment of women who have used cocaine during pregnancy. Sadly, however, in this article exposing the myth of the "crack baby" there was a photo whose caption referred to "a baby born addicted to cocaine."

This description of babies who may have been exposed to cocaine in utero is inconsistent with lay as well as professional definitions of addiction that refer to "compulsive, uncontrolled use . . . under conditions harmful to society." Definitions aside, the popular perception of "addicts" is almost universally highly pejorative and reflects fear and loathing. It is unfortunate that the Times refused to publish letters of some of the experts quoted, who urged that the paper repudiate its ill-chosen terminology.