“As the former head of state of
Switzerland, where innovations in drug policy have been front and
center for years, I have learned much about how to prevent heroin
overdoses, improve the lives of people who use drugs and create a
safer environment for their communities. It is a complex puzzle, but
there are key pieces that, when used together, create a public health
approach with long-lasting positive effects...
“The United States could take some
important lessons from Switzerland's success.
“In the past 20 years, Switzerland
and other countries, such as Portugal and Uruguay, have implemented
policies that are people-centered, focused on health and most
importantly, keeping people alive -- all while respecting human
rights.
“Switzerland's federal government
focused on reducing the harms of drug use among people who inject
drugs, creating supervised injection sites and offering substance
analysis services and access to opiate substitution therapy, mainly
through methadone and even medical heroin...
“I have learned that the single goal
of the puzzle I mentioned earlier is keeping people alive, and that
can be attained when governments provide comprehensive services.”
--Ruth
Dreifuss, Swiss politician and member of Swiss Federal Council from
1993-2002
(Ruth Dreifuss. “The secret to
fighting U.S. heroin epidemic.” CNN. April 19, 2016.)
To me, the first question for any
American interested in ending drug abuse – dependency, addiction,
overdose – is simple and brutally straightforward. The question is:
“Do you want to save the life of every individual who endangers
himself/herself with drugs?”
If you qualify your answer with a
myriad of judgments about who deserves to live and who deserves to
die, you may as well withdraw from the fight and watch the course of
the epidemic as it sweeps the nation. You, like me, hate addiction.
But you, unlike me, feel some people deserve to die.
I mean you can argue all day about
whether the dangerous drug is legal or illegal, about whether
addiction is caused by weak wills or environmental and genetic
factors, about whether maintaining sobriety is morally or immorally
responsible, or about whether addicts deserve a second, third, or
fourth chance BUT a life threatened by substance abuse – any life –
is worthy of existence.
In fact, we have the obligation as a
member of a caring society to save those who may die because of their
own drug abuse. I will say this once more: We have the obligation
to save drug addicts.
I believe this because I know that the
substances taken by drug abusers are not the sources of their
addiction. As people often point out to me, even potentially deadly
substances like heroin or prescription opioids are merely harmless
objects and do not become deadly vehicles until a human uses them.
But, there is the problem for those who
judge. Why do people use substances that might take their lives? We
have the answer in our own experiences, but are we willing to recall
our own lives and to accept our lack of reasoning and attraction to
risky behaviors. Until we do, we remain callous to those who “can't
even exercise sufficient self-control.” I used to be a poster-child
for reckless, dangerous behaviors. My usual substance of choice was a
boatload of alcohol.
So, perhaps a better question than “Do
you want to save the life of every individual who endangers
himself/herself with drugs?” might be “Why would anyone take a
risk that threatens life, limb, and happiness?” Would you judge all
of these people before administering life-saving attempts – the
drunk driver bleeding on the highway, the teen gang member shot in a
drug deal gone wrong, the suicide victim who still breathes?
Environmental factors, social factors,
and genetic factors certainly contribute to dependency and addiction.
Some of these pressures become so severe that people use drugs and
eventually become addicted. If you have ever wanted to escape, to
relax, to relieve boredom, to seem grown up, to rebel, or to
experiment, then you also understand the belief that taking great
risks is acceptable.
To me, the sacred value of one human
life is beyond calculation. To deny lifesaving redemption to a
person, even to a person who has destroyed his or her own good
health, is judgment that increases our own collective inhumanity to
man. We must aid in saving life at every opportunity. We are
responsible for solving our own health epidemic even when stigma runs
high.
No comments:
Post a Comment