DrugScope/ICM Poll Reveals Significant Public Support For The Provision And Funding Of Drug Treatment
Main Category: Alcohol / Addiction / Illegal DrugsArticle Date: 13 Mar 2009 - 3:00 PDT
email to a friend 
printer friendly 
opinions
| Patient / Public: |  |
1 (1 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: |  |
3 (2 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 3 posts |
Over three-quarters of the public support the provision and funding of treatment for individuals wanting to overcome drug dependency, according to a poll published today by leading drug information and policy charity DrugScope. The poll findings are being released to coincide with the publication of Drug treatment at the crossroads - a new DrugScope report highlighting the effectiveness of drug treatment alongside recommendations on how to improve it further [1].
The specially-commissioned DrugScope/ICM poll [2], conducted in February 2009, found that of 1,039 respondents:
- 76 per cent agreed that 'investment in drug treatment is a sensible use of government money, so long as it benefits individuals, families and communities', with 27 per cent registering 'strong' approval for this statement.
- 88 per cent agreed that 'drug treatment should be available to anyone with an addiction to drugs who is prepared to address it', with 42 per cent registering 'strong' agreement on this point.
The results complement today's Drug treatment at the crossroads report, particularly its overarching message that drug treatment is effective and should remain a priority for public investment. The report, which brings together views on drug treatment from across the drug sector and beyond, has been developed in response to a growing public and political debate about the aims, value and efficacy of treatment .
In October 2007, the publication of figures showing that only a small percentage of drug users left drug treatment free of all drugs (including the opiate substitute methadone) (3) was covered extensively in the media, leading to intense public and political analysis and wide-ranging criticism of drug treatment.
DrugScope ran a series of seminars in 2008 called 'The Great Debate', to discuss and debate how well drug treatment was working in the UK. Today's report summarises much of what was said by participants at 'The Great Debate' events and makes a number of recommendations on how to further improve the effectiveness of drug treatment.
Key recommendations include:
• Drug treatment should remain a priority for public investment. There is clear evidence of the benefits of drug treatment for individuals, families and communities.
• Politicians from all parties should publicly commit to an evidence-based approach to drug policy. Evidence-based drug treatment delivers positive public health outcomes, reductions in drug-related crime, and delivers to the tax-payer by being cost-effective.
• Choice in drug treatment should be promoted. Drug treatment should support both harm reduction (4) and abstinence-focussed (5) approaches. Methadone and other substitute drugs play an important role in drug treatment but more research is needed into alternatives to substitute prescribing.
• Abstinence is a desirable outcome of drug treatment, but only when it is safely and realistically achievable.
• More needs to be done to reduce drug-related deaths. Abstinence-based services should be required to have robust policies for managing relapse and the associated risk, particularly of post-detox overdose.
• There should be more recognition and support for the contribution made by the families and carers of drug users to the recovery process, including appropriate financial assistance.
Martin Barnes, DrugScope Chief Executive, said today:
"The findings of the DrugScope/ICM poll into public attitudes to drug treatment are extremely encouraging. Drug treatment has been subject to intense scrutiny and, at times, uninformed and unwarranted criticism over the past eighteen months. With the publication of this report, we are hoping to refresh and reinvigorate the debate - but with the hope of a more positive and supportive approach from all involved.
"While there should be space for informed and constructive criticism of the drug treatment system, drug treatment is worthy of public investment and should be delivered in the most effective way possible, to help drug users get their lives back on track.
"We should be justly proud of what has been achieved in drug treatment. The sustained investment in recent years has resulted in significantly increased capacity, accessibility and take-up of drug treatment services. However, there is both the need and opportunity to further improve retention and treatment outcomes, not least by ensuring that problem drug users are able to access core services such as housing, employment and training opportunities. It is the time to evaluate where we are and how we can make drug treatment even better."
On Thursday 12 March, an Early Day Motion (EDM) in support of continued public investment in drug treatment was tabled in the House of Commons by Dr Brian Iddon MP [6]. The EDM, co-sponsored by MPs from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, urges 'members of the House to commit to continued public investment in drug treatment, informed by the best available research'.
About DrugScope
DrugScope is the national membership organisation for the drugs field and the leading independent centre of expertise on drugs and drug policy. Our aim is to inform policy and reduce drug-related harms - to individuals, families and communities.
DrugScope
Visit our alcohol / addiction / illegal drugs section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/142156.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/142156.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (3)
False Pride
posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 14 Mar 2009 at 5:05 am“We should be justly proud of what has been achieved in drug treatment. The sustained investment in recent years has resulted in significantly increased capacity, accessibility and take-up of drug treatment services. However, there is both the need and opportunity to further improve retention and treatment outcomes, not least by ensuring that problem drug users are able to access core services such as housing, employment and training opportunities. It is the time to evaluate where we are and how we can make drug treatment even better."
What Mr. Barnes failed to mention.
1.Drug related deaths in accordance with the UK official definition are at their highest for 5 years. (Health Statistics Quarterly 39. Office of National Statistics)
2.The level of HIV and other blood born diseases among Injecting Drug Users is higher now than at the start of the decade.
3.In London where the prevalence of HIV is higher than anywhere else in England, 1 in 20 Injecting Drug Users is infected.
4.In the remainder of England and Wales HIV among IDUs has risen from approximately one in 400 to 1 in 250 in 2006.
5.The prevalence of hepatitis C among IDUs has increased from 33% in 2000 to 42% in 2006.
6.Approximately on in 5 IDUs has hepatitis B, which represents an increase of something like 200 per cent since 1997.
The foregoing is neither ‘uninformed’, or ‘unwarranted’ criticism, they are however the inescapable facts which Mr. Barnes seems either keen to suppress or is unaware of, In either event his opinion that “we should be justly proud of what has been achieved in drug treatment”, is hardly a balanced judgment of the escalation in both drug related deaths and disease which is being inflicted on our society. Nor the increasing level of drug offences and drug related crime.
Whether or not this catastrophic outcome of our drug treatment strategy can be wholly attributed to the harm reduction treatment protocols which has dominated it for so many years, and of which Mr. Barnes is an enthusiast, is the principle cause of the seemingly out of control increase in death, disease and crime, is debatable, what is not debatable is that we have no reason or justification to be proud that we have presided over an escalating and avoidable loss of life, death and criminal activity; nor is Mr. Barnes justified in claiming that we have.
Failings Found In Needle Exchange Services.
posted by Mary Brett on 17 Mar 2009 at 1:49 pmAmong other failings found in a survey by the NTA of needle exchanges in England 2006, 50% of DATS had no access to virus testing on site, 40% no immunisation in place,about a third lacked hygiene and safer technique discussions.
Data collection was poor - DATS able to provide numbers of clients and visits, quantity of equipment distributed and returned were in the minority. Only 74% of DATS, 55% of needle exchange service providers and 48% of pharmacies provided information. There was a lack of training for co-ordinators and access to facilities was mostly limited to the working week. Very few operated at weekends or during the evening or night. Largely missing was any monitoring of discarded needles or injuries arising from them to the public.
Has anything been done to improve this situation? From the latest figures, quoted here, it would appear not to be the case.
Quantity V Quality
posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 18 Mar 2009 at 6:11 amThank you for your revealing and interesting contribution Mary.
It seems as if the NTA's obsession with numbers treated, rather than treatment outcomes could be a contributory factor to the spread of blood born disease.
It is also depressing to learn that those hardy souls in the front line for whom I have considerable respect and admiration, are being deprived of the fundamental training and facilities needed to improve outcomes.
No doubt the apparent focus on numbers is to enable those responsible to issue gushing reports of achievement through the simplistic process of counting the numbers of needles issued, rather than positive outcomes of how those who use the facilities might be engaged in recovery.
A case of 'never mind the quality, feel the width'.
If we add to that the seeming disregard of the danger to the public caused by discarded needles, then harm reduction as it is being practised in this country is creating more problems than it is resolving.
It seems to me that those people who sit in their 'ivory towers' dreaming up 'harm reduction' solutions have failed to realise that addiction is not confined to office hours and that when the addicted are craving for a fix, the lack of a clean needle will not prevent them from using.
Now exactly what is it that Mr Barnes of DrugScope feels we have reason to be 'justly proud of'?
Is it the number of needles issued?
The injury to children and others arising from discarded needles?
The lack of training and supervision and hygiene facilities? Or the escalation, in avoidable deaths and disease?
The one thing I do agree with Mr. Barnes on is that more, much more is needed to reduce both drug related deaths and disease, and the most realistic way of achieving that is through abstinence focused recovery.
What Mr Barnes seems unable to grasp is that there is a world of difference between abstinence and recovery. Nor does he seem willing to acknowledge that the outcome of addiction is always abstinence. The latter is not an option as Mr Barnes appears to be suggesting. It is achieved either through premature death, a reality which is already occurring, or abstinence focused treatment followed by on going after care; realities that neither Mr. Barnes or the NTA seem willing or able, to confront.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
