Drug policy, harm and human rights: a rationalist approach

Mifepristone (RU-486®) as a Schedule IV Controlled Drug—Implications for a Misleading Drug Policy on Women’s Health Care

Background: Mifepristone (RU-486) has been approved for abortion in Taiwan since 2000. Mifepristone was the first non-addictive medicine to be classified as a schedule IV controlled drug. As a case of the “misuse” of “misuse of drugs laws,” the policy and consequences of mifepristone-assisted abortion for pregnant women could be compared with those of illicit drug use for drug addicts. Methods: The rule-making process of mifepristone regulation was analyzed from various aspects of legitimacy, social stigma, women’s human rights, and access to health care. Results and Discussion: The restriction policy on mifepristone regulation in Taiwan has raised concerns over the legitimacy of listing a non-addictive substance as a controlled drug, which may produce stigma and negatively affect women’s reproductive and privacy rights. Such a restriction policy and social stigma may lead to the unwillingness of pregnant women to utilize safe abortion services. Under the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, the US FDA’s action on mifepristone prescription and dispensing reminds us it is time to consider a change of policy. Conclusions: Listing mifepristone as a controlled drug could impede the acceptability and accessibility of safe mifepristone use and violates women’s right to health care.

The value of harm reduction for injection drug use: A clinical and public health ethics analysis

The US is facing dual public health crises related to opioid overdose deaths and HIV. Injection drug use is fueling both of these epidemics. The War on Drugs has failed to stem injection drug use and has contributed to mass incarceration, poverty, and racial disparities. Harm reduction is an alternative approach that seeks to decrease direct and indirect harms associated with drug use without necessarily decreasing drug consumption. Although overwhelming evidence demonstrates that harm reduction is effective in mitigating harms associated with drug use and is cost-effective in providing these benefits, harm reduction remains controversial and the ethical implications of harm reduction modalities have not been well explored. This paper analyzes harm reduction for injection drug use using the core principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice from both clinical ethics and public health ethics perspectives. This framework is applied to harm reduction modalities currently in use in the US, including opioid maintenance therapy, needle and syringe exchange programs, and opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution. Harm reduction interventions employed outside of the US, including safer injection facilities, heroin-assisted treatment, and decriminalization/legalization are then discussed. This analysis concludes that harm reduction is ethically sound and should be an integral aspect of our nation's healthcare system for combating the opioid crisis. From a clinical ethics perspective, harm reduction promotes the autonomy of, prevents harms to, advances the well-being of, and upholds justice for persons who use drugs. From a public health ethics perspective, harm reduction advances health equity, addresses racial disparities, and serves vulnerable, disadvantaged populations in a cost-effective manner.