Children taught to administer a drug to an adult overdosing

[Hot4Tchr-Bieg]

I don't object to the lesson. And Narcan can't hurt you, so if kids took the meds home and make their little brothers sniff them, nobody's getting hurt (although there may be the unintended consequence of the children then going on to play with other medications).

My question is what research has been done to justify the use of Narcan. We know it's effective. We also know that addicts are taking bigger and bigger doses of opiates now that they know they can be saved by the Narcan.

I guess my concern boils down to how many times should little Bobby revive his dead mother so that she can continue to not bring home food for him?

Judgy? Hell yeah. But also true. Is having small children reviving their dead parents really what's best for the children?

[MonarchMom]

I don't object to the lesson. And Narcan can't hurt you, so if kids took the meds home and make their little brothers sniff them, nobody's getting hurt (although there may be the unintended consequence of the children then going on to play with other medications).

My question is what research has been done to justify the use of Narcan. We know it's effective. We also know that addicts are taking bigger and bigger doses of opiates now that they know they can be saved by the Narcan.

I guess my concern boils down to how many times should little Bobby revive his dead mother so that she can continue to not bring home food for him?

Judgy? Hell yeah. But also true. Is having small children reviving their dead parents really what's best for the children?

What is the alternative? Little Bobby watches his parent (or sibling, or best friend) die? In a perfect world none of this would be needed, but we don't have that luxury. Also - do you have any study to support the claim of larger drug doses due to Narcan availaility? I know there are always unintended consequences, but Narcan is not cheap, I doubt people are choosing to take lethal doses of opiates with the idea they can be brought back to life by someone who is on hand with the drug.

Where we live, if a first responder or police administer Narcan, the person is then taken to the hospital and must be admitted directly to drug treatment or go to jail.

[Hot4Tchr-Bieg]

I don't object to the lesson. And Narcan can't hurt you, so if kids took the meds home and make their little brothers sniff them, nobody's getting hurt (although there may be the unintended consequence of the children then going on to play with other medications).

My question is what research has been done to justify the use of Narcan. We know it's effective. We also know that addicts are taking bigger and bigger doses of opiates now that they know they can be saved by the Narcan.

I guess my concern boils down to how many times should little Bobby revive his dead mother so that she can continue to not bring home food for him?

Judgy? Hell yeah. But also true. Is having small children reviving their dead parents really what's best for the children?

What is the alternative? Little Bobby watches his parent (or sibling, or best friend) die? In a perfect world none of this would be needed, but we don't have that luxury. Also - do you have any study to support the claim of larger drug doses due to Narcan availaility? I know there are always unintended consequences, but Narcan is not cheap, I doubt people are choosing to take lethal doses of opiates with the idea they can be brought back to life by someone who is on hand with the drug.

Where we live, if a first responder or police administer Narcan, the person is then taken to the hospital and must be admitted directly to drug treatment or go to jail.

I read the larger doses thing...I dunno, 2 years ago? But yes, it was after the Narcan became more easily available retail. It was found that overdoses went up. I can't tell you how widespread the sample was, but the conclusion was that the increase was partly due to the number of people "pushing the envelope" on how their dosages, and partly due to the fact that the number was going to go up anyway. Because of that, they weren't able to give percentages, but they had anecdotal evidence backing up the pushing the envelope aspect.

And yes...I think the alternative is that little Bobby watches his parent die. One. And then has maybe a slightly better chance of being cared for by somebody who won't OD in front of him in the living room. How many worlds are we supposed to let the heroin (et al) destroy?

Am I mean? Maybe. But I think it's valid to have evidence that we are putting the needs of the children first. If arming them with Narcan really is best for them, great. But is it?

[moviestar]

Tennessee is deploying this tactic because they don’t have the resources to remove all the kids of known drug addicts and support them in foster care or group homes. If they don’t have the money to get them into care now, they won’t have the money to put them in care AND pay for the intensive therapy that they’d need after watching their parents die six months or a year for now.

I don't object to the lesson. And Narcan can't hurt you, so if kids took the meds home and make their little brothers sniff them, nobody's getting hurt (although there may be the unintended consequence of the children then going on to play with other medications).

My question is what research has been done to justify the use of Narcan. We know it's effective. We also know that addicts are taking bigger and bigger doses of opiates now that they know they can be saved by the Narcan.

I guess my concern boils down to how many times should little Bobby revive his dead mother so that she can continue to not bring home food for him?

Judgy? Hell yeah. But also true. Is having small children reviving their dead parents really what's best for the children?

What is the alternative? Little Bobby watches his parent (or sibling, or best friend) die? In a perfect world none of this would be needed, but we don't have that luxury. Also - do you have any study to support the claim of larger drug doses due to Narcan availaility? I know there are always unintended consequences, but Narcan is not cheap, I doubt people are choosing to take lethal doses of opiates with the idea they can be brought back to life by someone who is on hand with the drug.

Where we live, if a first responder or police administer Narcan, the person is then taken to the hospital and must be admitted directly to drug treatment or go to jail.

I read the larger doses thing...I dunno, 2 years ago? But yes, it was after the Narcan became more easily available retail. It was found that overdoses went up. I can't tell you how widespread the sample was, but the conclusion was that the increase was partly due to the number of people "pushing the envelope" on how their dosages, and partly due to the fact that the number was going to go up anyway. Because of that, they weren't able to give percentages, but they had anecdotal evidence backing up the pushing the envelope aspect.

And yes...I think the alternative is that little Bobby watches his parent die. One. And then has maybe a slightly better chance of being cared for by somebody who won't OD in front of him in the living room. How many worlds are we supposed to let the heroin (et al) destroy?

Am I mean? Maybe. But I think it's valid to have evidence that we are putting the needs of the children first. If arming them with Narcan really is best for them, great. But is it?

[Hot4Tchr-Bieg]

Tennessee is deploying this tactic because they don’t have the resources to remove all the kids of known drug addicts and support them in foster care or group homes. If they don’t have the money to get them into care now, they won’t have the money to put them in care AND pay for the intensive therapy that they’d need after watching their parents die six months or a year for now.

What is the alternative? Little Bobby watches his parent (or sibling, or best friend) die? In a perfect world none of this would be needed, but we don't have that luxury. Also - do you have any study to support the claim of larger drug doses due to Narcan availaility? I know there are always unintended consequences, but Narcan is not cheap, I doubt people are choosing to take lethal doses of opiates with the idea they can be brought back to life by someone who is on hand with the drug.

Where we live, if a first responder or police administer Narcan, the person is then taken to the hospital and must be admitted directly to drug treatment or go to jail.

I read the larger doses thing...I dunno, 2 years ago? But yes, it was after the Narcan became more easily available retail. It was found that overdoses went up. I can't tell you how widespread the sample was, but the conclusion was that the increase was partly due to the number of people "pushing the envelope" on how their dosages, and partly due to the fact that the number was going to go up anyway. Because of that, they weren't able to give percentages, but they had anecdotal evidence backing up the pushing the envelope aspect.

And yes...I think the alternative is that little Bobby watches his parent die. One. And then has maybe a slightly better chance of being cared for by somebody who won't OD in front of him in the living room. How many worlds are we supposed to let the heroin (et al) destroy?

Am I mean? Maybe. But I think it's valid to have evidence that we are putting the needs of the children first. If arming them with Narcan really is best for them, great. But is it?

Okay...but how are they going to pay for the mental health care for the percentage of Narcan-trained 8 year olds who who woke up in the morning to find a cold, blue parent face down on the coffee table, administered the Narcan, and don't understand why Mommy's still dead. "Why didn't it work? Did I do it wrong?"

Listen, it's not typically my style to offer simple solutions to complex problems. But one thing is VERY simple...you can't mobilize the 6-12 year olds to fight the problem of adult overdoses. Too much here can go wrong.