Full participation in harm reduction programmes is associated with decreased risk for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus: evidence from the Amsterdam Cohort Studies among drug users

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of harm-reduction programmes on HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) incidence among ever-injecting drug users (DU) from the Amsterdam Cohort Studies (ACS).

METHODS

The association between use of harm reduction and seroconversion for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and/or hepatitis C virus (HCV) was evaluated using Poisson regression. A total of 714 DU were at risk for HIV and/or HCV during follow-up. Harm reduction was measured by combining its two most important components--methadone dose and needle exchange programme (NEP) use--and looking at five categories of participation, ranging from no participation (no methadone in the past 6 months, injecting drug use in the past 6 months and no use of NEP) to full participation (> or = 60 mg methadone/day and no current injecting or > or = 60 mg methadone/day and current injecting but all needles exchanged).

RESULTS

Methadone dose or NEP use alone were not associated significantly with HIV or HCV seroconversion. However, with combination of these variables and after correction for possibly confounding variables, we found that full participation in a harm reduction programme (HRP) was associated with a lower risk of HIV and HCV infection in ever-injecting drug users (DU), compared to no participation [incidence rate ratio 0.43 (95% CI 0.21-0.87) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.13-1.03), respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we found that full participation in HRP was associated with a lower incidence of HCV and HIV infection in ever-injecting DU, indicating that combined prevention measures--but not the use of NEP or methadone alone--might contribute to the reduction of the spread of these infections.

The use of pleasure in harm reduction: perspectives from the history of sexuality

The absence of pleasure in harm reduction discourse is more and more frequently noted, but few have considered what, exactly, more attention to pleasure might do. What is the value of pleasure for harm reduction praxis? Central to such an inquiry is the question of how pleasure is grasped, conceptually and methodologically. In this paper I use Foucault's History of Sexuality to elaborate a perspective on the use of pleasure within harm reduction. I argue that Foucault's work suggests a distinction between therapeutic and social-pragmatic approaches to pleasure, and that such a distinction is important for harm reduction--to the extent that it seeks to maintain a critical awareness of the relation between stigma and care--in that the latter model raises the possibility of maintaining de-pathologizing modes of care. An appreciation of pleasure in terms of its social pragmatics helps to recognize practices of safety, care and risk that might otherwise go unregistered in the current punitive political environment. It provides a basis for conceiving practical measures that are in touch with given concerns and bodily practices, and thus have more chance of being taken up. It also enables a more dynamic and responsive approach to the practice of bodies and pleasures.

Assent in paediatric research: theoretical and practical considerations

Guidelines around the world require children to provide assent for their participation in most research studies. Yet, little further guidance is provided on how review committees should implement this requirement, including which children are capable of providing assent and when the requirement for assent may be waived on the grounds that the research offers participating children the potential for important clinical benefit. The present paper argues that the assent requirement is supported by the importance of allowing children who are capable to make their own decisions. This suggests children are capable of assent when they become able to understand the research in question. While development varies across individual children, existing data suggest most children develop this ability by approximately age 14. Until instruments are developed to assess the assent capacity of individual children, this age should be used as the threshold for assent. In addition, the importance of protecting children from harm suggests that the sustained dissent of all children, including those who are unable to provide assent, should be respected. While the assent requirement may be waived when research participation offers the potential for important medical benefit that is unavailable outside the research context, analysis suggests that children's sustained dissent should be respected in all cases.

Harm reduction through a social justice lens

BACKGROUND

People who are street involved such as those experiencing homelessness and drug use face multiple inequities in health and access to health care. Morbidity and mortality are significantly increased among those who are street involved. Incorporation of a harm reduction philosophy in health care has the potential to shift the moral context of health care delivery and enhance access to health care services. However, harm reduction with a primary focus on reducing the harms of drug use fails focus on the harms associated with the context of drug use such as homelessness, violence and poverty.

METHODS

Ethical analysis of the underlying values of harm reduction and examination of different conceptions of justice are discussed as a basis for action that addresses a broad range of harms associated with drug use.

RESULTS

Theories of distributive justice that focus primarily on the distribution of material goods are limited as theoretical frameworks for addressing the root causes of harm associated with drug use. Social justice, reconceptualised and interpreted through a critical lens as described by Iris Marion Young, is presented as a promising alternative ethical framework.

CONCLUSIONS

A critical reinterpretation of social justice leads to insights that can illuminate structural inequities that contribute to the harms associated with the context of drug use. Such an approach provides promise as means of informing policy that aims to reduce a broad range of harms associated with drug use such as homelessness and poverty.

Tobacco harm reduction: How rational public policy could transform a pandemic

Nicotine, at the dosage levels smokers seek, is a relatively innocuous drug commonly delivered by a highly harmful device, cigarette smoke. An intensifying pandemic of disease caused or exacerbated by smoking demands more effective policy responses than the current one: demanding that nicotine users abstain. A pragmatic response to the smoking problem is blocked by moralistic campaigns masquerading as public health, by divisions within the community of opponents to present policy, and by the public-health professions antipathy to any tobacco-control endeavours other than smoking cessation. Yet, numerous alternative systems for nicotine delivery exist, many of them far safer than smoking. A pragmatic, public-health approach to tobacco control would recognize a continuum of risk and encourage nicotine users to move themselves down the risk spectrum by choosing safer alternatives to smoking--without demanding abstinence.

"Not safe" is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product

The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasise the message that there is "no safe cigarette" or "no safe tobacco product". We propose that the "no safe" message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, "there is no safe tobacco product" to indicate information on degree of risks. The "no safe tobacco" message does not contradict, for example, the mistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes are safer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kind of "rule utilitarian" ethical position in which the principle of truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although harm reduction approaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseases are founded on science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is independently related to the need to promote health literacy. This right should be respected whether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.

Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk

The phrase "minimal risk," as defined in the United States' federal research regulations, is ambiguous and poorly defined. This article argues that most of the ambiguity that one finds in the phrase stems from the "daily life risks" standard in the definition of minimal risk. In this article, the author argues that the daily life risks standard should be dropped and that "minimal risk" should be defined as simply "the probability and magnitude of the harm or discomfort anticipated in research are not greater than those encountered during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests".

Ethical considerations of e-cigarette use for tobacco harm reduction

Due to their similarity to tobacco cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) could play an important role in tobacco harm reduction. However, the public health community remains divided concerning the appropriateness of endorsing a device whose safety and efficacy for smoking cessation remain unclear. We identified the major ethical considerations surrounding the use of e-cigarettes for tobacco harm reduction, including product safety, efficacy for smoking cessation and reduction, use among non-smokers, use among youth, marketing and advertisement, use in public places, renormalization of a smoking culture, and market ownership. Overall, the safety profile of e-cigarettes is unlikely to warrant serious public health concerns, particularly given the known adverse health effects associated with tobacco cigarettes. As a result, it is unlikely that the population-level harms resulting from e-cigarette uptake among non-smokers would overshadow the public health gains obtained from tobacco harm reduction among current smokers. While the existence of a gateway effect for youth remains uncertain, e-cigarette use in this population should be discouraged. Similarly, marketing and advertisement should remain aligned with the degree of known product risk and should be targeted to current smokers. Overall, the available evidence supports the cautionary implementation of harm reduction interventions aimed at promoting e-cigarettes as attractive and competitive alternatives to cigarette smoking, while taking measures to protect vulnerable groups and individuals.

Mathematical Modeling of Hepatitis C Prevalence Reduction with Antiviral Treatment Scale-Up in Persons Who Inject Drugs in Metropolitan Chicago

BACKGROUND/AIM

New direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) provide an opportunity to combat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in persons who inject drugs (PWID). Here we use a mathematical model to predict the impact of a DAA-treatment scale-up on HCV prevalence among PWID and the estimated cost in metropolitan Chicago.

METHODS

To estimate the HCV antibody and HCV-RNA (chronic infection) prevalence among the metropolitan Chicago PWID population, we used empirical data from three large epidemiological studies. Cost of DAAs is assumed $50,000 per person.

RESULTS

Approximately 32,000 PWID reside in metropolitan Chicago with an estimated HCV-RNA prevalence of 47% or 15,040 cases. Approximately 22,000 PWID (69% of the total PWID population) attend harm reduction (HR) programs, such as syringe exchange programs, and have an estimated HCV-RNA prevalence of 30%. There are about 11,000 young PWID (<30 years old) with an estimated HCV-RNA prevalence of 10% (PWID in these two subpopulations overlap). The model suggests that the following treatment scale-up is needed to reduce the baseline HCV-RNA prevalence by one-half over 10 years of treatment [cost per year, min-max in millions]: 35 per 1,000 [$50-$77] in the overall PWID population, 19 per 1,000 [$20-$26] for persons in HR programs, and 5 per 1,000 [$3-$4] for young PWID.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment scale-up could dramatically reduce the prevalence of chronic HCV infection among PWID in Chicago, who are the main reservoir for on-going HCV transmission. Focusing treatment on PWID attending HR programs and/or young PWID could have a significant impact on HCV prevalence in these subpopulations at an attainable cost.

Treating Addictions: Harm Reduction in Clinical Care and Prevention

This paper examines the role of clinical practitioners and clinical researchers internationally in establishing the utility of harm-reduction approaches to substance use. It thus illustrates the potential for clinicians to play a pivotal role in health promoting structural interventions based on harm-reduction goals and public health models. Popular media images of drug use as uniformly damaging, and abstinence as the only acceptable goal of treatment, threaten to distort clinical care away from a basis in evidence, which shows that some ways of using drugs are far more harmful than others and that punitive approaches and insistence on total abstinence as the only goal of treatment often increases the harms of drug use rather than reducing drug use. Therefore the leadership and scientific authority of clinicians who understand the health impact of harm-reduction strategies is needed. Through a review of harm-reduction interventions in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, we identify three ways that clinicians have helped to achieve a paradigm shift from punitive approaches to harm-reduction principles in clinical care and in drug policy: (1) through clinical research to provide data establishing the effectiveness and feasibility of harm-reduction approaches, (2) by developing innovative clinical programmes that employ harm reduction, and thereby (3) changing the standard of care to include routine use of these evidence-based (but often misunderstood) approaches in their practices. We argue that through promotion of harm-reduction goals and methods, clinicians have unique opportunities to improve the health outcomes of vulnerable populations.

Acting parentally: an argument against sex selection

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (HFEA) recent restrictive recommendations on sex selection have highlighted the need for consideration of the plausibility of ethical arguments against sex selection. In this paper, the author suggests a parental virtues approach to some questions of reproductive ethics (including sex selection) as a superior alternative to an exclusively harm focused approach such as the procreative liberty framework. The author formulates a virtue ethics argument against sex selection based on the idea that acceptance is a character trait of the good parent. It is concluded that, because the argument presented posits a wrong in the sex selecting agent's action that is not a harm, the argument could not function as a justification of the HFEA's restrictive position in light of their explicit commitment to procreative liberty; it does, however, suggest that ethical approaches focused exclusively on harm fail to capture all the relevant moral considerations and thus that we should look beyond such approaches.

Informed consent to opioid agonist maintenance treatment: recommended ethical guidelines

BACKGROUND

Some bioethicists have questioned whether opioid addicted individuals are able to provide free and informed consent to opioid agonist maintenance treatment. Conflicting motives for providing such treatment (e.g. improving the personal health of addicts and protecting public health and order) can also influence what individuals are required to consent to, and how that consent is obtained. We discuss both issues and attempt to specify the conditions for obtaining informed consent to agonist maintenance treatment for opioid addiction.

METHODS

We briefly review the neuroscientific literature on the effects of addiction on the autonomy and decision-making capacity of opioid dependent individuals, and ascertain how informed consent to the treatment of opioid addiction should be obtained. We also provide an ethical analysis of the competing social and medical forces that influence the consent process and make some recommendations on how to ensure that individuals enter maintenance treatment that is provided in an effective and ethical way.

RESULTS

Our analysis shows that whilst the autonomy of opioid dependent individuals is impaired by their addiction, they do retain the ability to consent to treatment provided they are not in acute withdrawal or intoxication. These symptoms should have abated, either by supervised withdrawal or stabilisation on agonist maintenance, before they are asked to consent to a detailed treatment contract. Once stabilised, individuals should be provided with detailed information about the risks and benefits of all treatments, and restrictions and regulations under which they are provided.

CONCLUSION

Informed consent is an important part of the treatment process that should be obtained in ways that increase the autonomy and decision-making capacity in opioid addicts.

Dealing with the long-term social implications of research

Biomedical and behavioral research may affect strongly held social values and thereby create significant controversy over whether such research should be permitted in the first place. Institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of participants in research are sometimes faced with review of protocols that have significant implications for social policy and the potential for negative social consequences. Although IRB members often raise concerns about potential long-term social implications in protocol review, federal regulations strongly discourage IRBs from considering them in their decisions. Yet IRBs often do consider the social implications of research protocols and sometimes create significant delays in initiating or even prevent such research. The social implications of research are important topics for public scrutiny and professional discussion. This article examines the reasons that the federal regulations preclude IRBs from assessing the social risks of research, and examines alternative approaches that have been used with varying success by national advisory groups to provide such guidance. The article concludes with recommendations for characteristics of a national advisory group that could successfully fulfill this need, including sustainability, independence, diverse and relevant expertise, and public transparency.

Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells

The compromise position that accepts the use and derivation of stem cells from spare in vitro fertilisation embryos but opposes the creation of embryos for these purposes is a very weak ethical position. This paper argues that whatever the basis is on which defenders of this viewpoint accord intrinsic value to the embryo, once they accept the creation and sacrifice of embryos to benefit infertile people with a child-wish, they do not have a sound moral argument to condemn the creation and sacrifice of embryos to benefit ill and injured people.

Tobacco harm reduction: a call to address the ethical dilemmas

The 2001 Institute of Medicine report Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction has helped to focus attention on the scientific basis for assessing tobacco harm reduction products. As the tobacco research and policy communities tackle the challenges of evaluating harm reduction, there are ethical issues that must also be addressed. There has, however, been very little writing on the ethics of this field. In an effort to spur research into answering these ethical questions, we present two complementary approaches. First we outline three overarching topics in tobacco harm reduction that would particularly lend themselves to study: (a) Is the pursuit of tobacco harm reduction an ethical goal? (b) What are the ethical considerations of tobacco harm reduction vis-à-vis pharmaceutical companies? and (c) What are the ethical considerations for harm reduction vis-à-vis tobacco companies? We then present one possible framework for analyzing the ethical issues that accompany particular tobacco harm reduction strategies. By considering the ethical dilemmas attendant to tobacco harm reduction in a prospective and thoughtful manner, we will be better prepared to handle the challenges that face us individually as researchers and collectively as a tobacco control community.

Drawing the line on in vitro gametogenesis

In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) might offer numerous research and clinical benefits. Some potential clinical applications of IVG, such as allowing opposite-sex couples experiencing infertility to have genetically related children, have attracted support. Others, such as enabling same-sex reproduction and solo reproduction, have attracted significantly more criticism. In this paper, we examine how different ethical principles might help us to draw lines and distinguish between ethically desirable and undesirable uses of IVG. We discuss the alleged distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic uses of assisted reproduction in the context of IVG, and show how it is both problematic to apply in practice and theoretically dubious. We then discuss how the ethical principles of reproductive justice and beneficence apply to IVG for opposite-sex reproduction, same-sex reproduction, and solo reproduction. We suggest that these principles generate strong reasons for the use of IVG for opposite-sex and same-sex reproduction, but not for solo reproduction.

Minors, Moral Psychology, and the Harm Reduction Debate: The Case of Tobacco and Nicotine

Harm reduction debates are important in health policy. Although it has been established that morality affects policy, this article proposes that perspectives from moral psychology help to explain the challenges of developing evidence-based policy on prohibition-only versus tobacco/nicotine harm reduction for minors. Protecting youth from tobacco is critical, especially since tobacco/nicotine products are legal for adults, who usually begin using when young. Although cigarettes and other combustibles are the deadliest tobacco products, other products such as smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes, though unsafe, are upward of 90 percent less harmful than cigarettes. Disgust at contaminating the "purity" of youth, especially "good," low-risk youth, with any tobacco/nicotine products opposes harm reduction, as does contempt for violating so-called community values and disrespecting authority. Support for harm reduction arises from anger at failing to provide reduced harm to "bad," high-risk individuals and denying them the "liberty" to decide. Fast-thinking, moral-emotional intuitions are supported by rationalizations arising from slow-thinking processes. The recognition of such moral psychological influences and the efforts to minimize their impact may help lead to amelioration and compromise. This example from tobacco control, with divided concerns for low-risk and high-risk youth, can be applied to other harm reduction versus prohibition-only policies directed at minors.

Choosing death in unjust conditions: hope, autonomy and harm reduction

In this essay, we consider questions arising from cases in which people request medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in unjust social circumstances. We develop our argument by asking two questions. First, can decisions made in the context of unjust social circumstance be meaningfully autonomous? We understand 'unjust social circumstances' to be circumstances in which people do not have meaningful access to the range of options to which they are entitled and 'autonomy' as self-governance in the service of personally meaningful goals, values and commitments. People in these circumstances would choose otherwise, were conditions more just. We consider and reject arguments that the autonomy of people choosing death in the context of injustice is necessarily reduced, either by restricting their options for self-determination, through their internalisation of oppressive attitudes or by undermining their hope to the point that they despair.Second, should MAiD be available to people in such circumstances, even when a sound argument can be made that the agents in question are autonomous? In response, we use a harm reduction approach, arguing that even though such decisions are tragic, MAiD should be available. Our argument engages with relational theories of autonomy as well as recent criticism raised against them and is intended to be general in application, although it emerges in response to the Canadian legal regimen around MAiD, with a focus on recent changes in Canada's eligibility criteria to qualify for MAiD.

Little cigars, big cigars: omissions and commissions of harm and harm reduction information on the Internet

We conducted a comparative analysis of "harm," "harm reduction," and "little cigar" information about cigars on 10 major English-language health Web sites. The sites were from governmental and nongovernmental organizations based in seven different countries and included "harm" and "harm reduction" information, discussions of little cigars, quantitative estimates of health risks, and qualifying behavioral characteristics (inhalation, number per day). Of the 10 Web sites, 7 offered statements explicitly indicating that cigars may be safer than cigarettes. None of the Web sites reviewed described that little cigars are likely as dangerous as cigarettes. Some Web sites provided quantitative estimates of health risks and extensive discussions of qualifying factors. Reading grade levels were higher than desirable. Extensive and complex information on the reduced risks of cigars compared with cigarettes is available on Web sites affiliated with prominent health organizations. Yet these sites fail to warn consumers that popular cigarette-like little cigars and cigarillos are likely to be just as dangerous as cigarettes, even for those who have never smoked cigarettes. Improvement of these Web sites is urgently needed to provide the public with high-quality health information.

Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited

Despite stringent and fine tuned laws most jurisdictions are not able to curb organ trafficking. Nor are they able to provide organs to the needy. There are reports of the kidnapping and murder of children and adults to "harvest" their organs. Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because "morality" does not allow them to have access to the organs. Arguments against organ sale are grounded in two broad considerations: (1) sale is contrary to human dignity, and (2) sale violates equity. Both these objections are examined in this article and it is concluded that they reflect a state of moral paternalism rather than pragmatism. It is argued that a live human body constitutes a vital source of supply of organs and tissues and that the possibilities of its optimum utilisation should be explored. Commercialisation should be curbed not by depriving a needy person of his genuine requirements but by making the enforcement agencies efficient.

Should healthcare professionals sometimes allow harm? The case of self-injury

This paper considers the ethical justification for the use of harm minimisation approaches with individuals who self-injure. While the general issues concerning harm minimisation have been widely debated, there has been only limited consideration of the ethical issues raised by allowing people to continue injuring themselves as part of an agreed therapeutic programme. I will argue that harm minimisation should be supported on the basis that it results in an overall reduction in harm when compared with more traditional ways of dealing with self-injurious behaviour. It will be argued that this is an example of a situation where healthcare professionals sometimes have a moral obligation to allow harm to come to their patients.