It seems counter-intuitive that heroin addicts would be given all that essential to maintaining a steady heroin addiction (including the drug itself) in an attempt to regulate and keep the city at large safe, though that is exactly what a certain well populated western city is proposing to regulate their addiction problems.
In Vancouver, Canada (a port town with large shipments of both legal and illegal incoming goods) there’s a section of town labeled “Downtown East-side”, with a negative reputation of being a haven for drug users, prominently heroin. However, the town of Vancouver has implemented what some have labeled as a progressive (though others wouldn’t be so quick to label it as such) approach to the well being of both addicts and the average person in Vancouver.
The plan? Free heroin for addicts. And not just free heroin, but clean needles and a safe place for them to shoot up without fear of being arrested. Now on the surface this seems absolutely ludicrous, but upon further examination the theory that it would be an ultimately beneficial program seems more valid.
Heroin addicts tend to live a destitute life filled with immoral acts in an effort to maintain their addiction. Many addicts result to theft or prostitution in order to keep a steady supply of opiates running through their bloodstream. Addiction is a terrible disease, and avoiding withdrawal will make the most caring man commit an act of selfishness. On their own, many would result to such behaivor. Now here is where Vancouver’s plan (as well as many European nations including Germany and Switzerland) seems to make sense.
Supplying the worst addicts with this service would keep them off the streets, not only protecting them, but ensuring the safety and well being of anyone who may come into contact with them. When put into a larger picture, applying the plan to the entire city rather than the addicts directly involved, the idea takes on a different appearance. It no longer seems so absurd, and in fact, seems beneficial for everyone.

It seems counter-intuitive that the medical field of drug prescription, a field aimed at the well being of humanity, would appear to favor a certain race of people entirely defined by economical elements.
According to one study, prescription drugs such as Prozac (a known anti-depressant), are apparently much more likely to be prescribed to someone who is white, rather than black or Hispanic. Why? The reason seems to be economical, as many of the white patients being prescribed Prozac have standard health insurance, while those not being prescribed are on Medicare or Medicaid.
Why is this a matter of money? Is not the well being of our nations citizens of the utmost importance, and not something that can be swayed by value? Though this seems to be the case, even if it doesn’t appear so on the surface. Minorities in this nation are being denied proper health care because of health insurance or there lack of access to it.
Physicians and policymakers are needed to take a stand on this issue, because without their expertise nothing can be done in the realm of change. Should not the availability of treatment be of equal access to everyone, no matter class or race? In a nation obsessed with capitalism and rugged individualism, fairness does not seem to be of much urgency. This is a sad, sad world.
Equal access to prescription drug will lead to the ultimate well being of our nation, and this blockage only serves as a clear example of race still playing a part in a “post-racial” society. Who are we kidding?

It seems counter-intuitive that so much attention and money would be put into “end-of-life” care, when it seems would be the last time in your life where one is expected to be healthy. Even upon further rumination it still seems absurd. Why put so much money in keeping one alive at the end of their life?
There is often no hope of recovery, yet many people still cling onto their loved ones as they are slowly dying, searching in vain for another cure that could possibly keep them alive just a little bit longer. Talk about counter-intuitive! Also talk about a waste of money and resources for these people are literally being kept alive to die shortly after.
This philosophical debate raged inside the mind of Charles Ornstein, a journalist who covered a wide array of medical news, as he wrestled with a dilemma of his mother being kept alive on life support. His own mother’s wish was to not be kept alive like this, but imagine the heartbreak that one goes through in such a situation. That is no easy call to make.
Still, after discussion with his family and a few medical tests, which yielded nothing hopeful about her recovery, he made the ultimate decision to remove life support, leading to his mother’s death. He was met with the most difficult decision of his life, and in my opinion, he made the right call.
If there is virtually no hope of recovery, why lie to yourself with false hopes? Not only is it a waste of resources, but it also takes a toll on our sense of naivety. One knows that there is no hope, yet they still keep deciding to leave a loved one alive in hope for something beyond a miracle.

This entry was posted in breadpatrol99, E02: Purposeful Summaries. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s