An Ethical and Moral Question: Should All Drug Addicts Be Viewed the Same?

 

VICTIMHOOD IN ADDICTION:

SHOULD PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FACTOR INTO HOW WE APPROACH DRUG TREATMENT?

Should we look at drug addicts differently depending on how they got there? Are there differences between drug addicts who involuntarily become dependent on legally-prescribed painkillers vs. drug addicts who willfully chose to abuse illegal recreational street drugs? These questions will be the subject of today’s discussion.

I began watching the new Netflix movie-series, Painkiller last night. It’s currently ranked #1 on the streaming platform. So, there’s obviously widespread interest in the topic. To date, I made it through 3 of 6 episodes. Painkiller is a fact-based dramatic re-enactment of the OxyContin epidemic, with an intense focus on the willful recklessness and blatant criminal profiteering by corporate giant Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family. Let’s be very clear — this was a mob of drug pushers. Think of Pablo Escobar in a pin-stripped suit. Purdue Pharma was a (legalized) heroin dealer, that is, until illegal activities were exposed (thanks entirely to government and the media, the favorite whipping boys of capitalist free marketeers). I strongly recommend watching Painkiller. It reminds me of the excellent 2015 movie The Big Short, about the housing-loan scandal that led to a global economic collapse. The creative manner of telling an important, albeit difficult story, merits more commentary. I may write a full review later.

Midway into the series, my primary takeaways are: (1) sympathy and (2) anger. I’m sympathetic to the victims, mostly innocent people of all ages and backgrounds who began taking pain medications (and OxyContin when it was introduced and marketed and eventually prescribed by financially dog-boned doctors as a “miracle” drug). Many became hooked to its powerful addictive qualities. I’m also angry at the broken system that allowed this mass human disaster to happen in the first place. They look the other way as 100,000+ lives per year spun out of control.  Guilty in all this carnage were the businesses which put their profits over people — ruining health and destroying lives (sound familiar?).

However, what troubles me most is the broad brush of *victimhood.* The broad category known as “drug addicts” are commonly thought of as innocents and injured parties No distinction seems to be made for very real pain, human costs, and casualties based (almost) entirely on personal responsibility. While drug addiction is indeed a widespread tragedy touching most of us in some way, and those who endure such problems often deserve compassion, I still can’t help but view the paths to destruction very differently. One seems to be entirely victimized by a corrupt system of doctors, greedy marketers, and for-profit dope peddlers masquerading as big pharmaceutical companies. The other seems to be mostly responsible for their own self-destruction. I’m sorry, but a mother who went through a difficult childbirth and then was prescribed painkillers and became addicted is NOT the same as a stupid teenager ignoring all the science and decades of public service warnings and decides to smoke crack, then falls into the abyss of addiction. We cannot (and should not) victimize an addict who began taking painkillers to get through a workday and drug user simply wanting to “get high.” No, they are not the same.

I do realize the Hippocratic oath and the centuries-old practice of medicine necessitates that no distinctions be drawn in treatments. Emergency rooms are not the place for judgement. Let’s continue doing what we can on the front lines of the fight. Nevertheless, as a public policy issue, we certainly should be *establishing priorities* as to which types of individuals merit greater resources (and which individuals should be a lower priority). I’m far more supportive of caring for the true victims of drug addiction, mostly innocents who normally would never have tried an illegal narcotic of any kind until they suffered accidents or endured hospital procedures and then slowly tumbled into the depths of addiction. I also realize street junkies who do bear responsibility for their own stupidity for trying dangerous drugs in the first place do need some measure of treatment and care–if only because of the cost of their addiction to the rest of society is incalculably high (crimes committed to support their habit, for instance).

OxyContin may not be in the news as much today. Presumably, similar questions now apply to Fentanyl, another dangerous opioid which has become the modern scourge of society. Many of my contacts here on social media have experience with these narcotics and have dealt with these issues directly–either personally, or with family members and friends (or both). I expect my position (to differentiate drug addicts based on choices they made) will alienate and even anger some readers. That’s fine. Feel free to enlighten me and make a persuasive argument to the contrary.

That all said, I will stand by my original supposition: All drug addicts are not the same. They should be viewed differently depending on how they got there. Moreover, resources should be allocated differently in our approach to treatments, whenever and wherever necessary.

__________

Note: I would be remiss were I not to point out the victims of drug abuse are families and friends, who try to help, but fail. They do deserve compassion and support, regardless of the path to destruction of a loved one.