Should ambulances be required to treat repeat overdose victims?

archive.is/hJZDr

Now Middletown city councilman Dan Picard has made a startling proposal. He's suggested a three strikes rule: overdose two times and the third time medics may not respond. If overdoses continue at this rate, Picard says they won't be able to afford to provide emergency services.
"If we don't do anything the city's going to run out of money," he says.

Each dose of Naloxone, an overdose reversal drug, cost about $36 and, depending on the potency of the opioid, one patient may require several doses. The department estimates it will spend up to $90,000 on Naloxone this year —that's 50 percent more than their entire budget for all the medications aboard their ambulances.

Picard says that's not the only cost. He calculates that each overdose run cost the city $1,104. He counts the wear on the ambulance, the cost of drugs and the medics' time.

His proposed three strikes policy would work like this: The first two times a person overdoses they would have to pay back every cent by performing community service. If that same person overdoses a third time, but they have not completed their community service, an ambulance will not go out to help them. Picard says his plan has been called inhumane, but, he worries about what could happen when the city can't afford any emergency services at all.

Picard doesn't even know if this idea is legal, but the city needs a solution. From addiction treatment to a needle exchange, this year the opioid epidemic could cost Middletown over $2 million dollars — 10 percent of the city's annual tax revenue.

His plan has its critics. For one thing, even if were feasible, it might not make a big financial difference. According to the Fire Department, only 15 percent of overdose runs are for people who have had multiple overdoses. Chief Paul Lolli says that means the bulk of the overdose runs, 85 percent, are for first time overdoses.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0vVCSUafFVI
hooktube.com/watch?v=0vVCSUafFVI
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Nice. I would support this.

I'm sure hospital addmission costs are massive as well... it'd never pass though, I imagine

>For one thing, even if were feasible, it might not make a big financial difference

This is why people go broke. They think if you are trying to save $100 and doing X only saves $10 then there is no point in doing it at all

>Legalize marijuana
>People no longer arrested for possession etc.
>Massive financial burden taken from jails
>Put some of the saved money into emergency services
Fixed the city budget

Simpler solution:
>remove beans, nigs, kebabs
>supply drop makes prices too high for junkies

Nope.

I believe in 2nd chances but if you OD and don't get help for yourself afterwards it's all on you. I know addiction is a disease and it significantly alters the brain but to say that you aren't coherent in thought while sober is BS. You put the pills into your mouth. You put the heroin into your veins, why should society pay for your intentional degeneracy?

Yes, goy. To stop a drig epidimic just legalize gateway drugs.

the current way doesn't make sense. If addiction really was making it impossible for them to make decisions then they can't be let loose on the streets. Sorry.

This, if you survive once and keep on going then you are hopeless.