...
首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of drug policy >Why are some people who have received overdose education and naloxone reticent to call Emergency Medical Services in the event of overdose?
【24h】

Why are some people who have received overdose education and naloxone reticent to call Emergency Medical Services in the event of overdose?

机译:为什么有些人在过量服用时接受过量教育和纳洛酮躁狂症,以便在发生过量时呼叫紧急医疗服务?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) training for persons who inject drugs (PWID) underlines the importance of summoning emergency medical services (EMS). To encourage PWID to do so, Colorado enacted a Good Samaritan law providing limited immunity from prosecution for possession of a controlled substance and/or drug paraphernalia to the overdose victim and the witnesses who in good faith provide emergency assistance. This paper examines the law’s influence by describing OEND trained PWIDs’ experience reversing overdoses and their decision about calling for EMS support. Methods Findings from two complementary studies, a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with OEND trained PWID who had reversed one or more overdoses, and an on-going fieldwork-based project examining PWIDs’ self-identified health concerns were triangulated to describe and explain participants’ decision to call for EMS. Results In most overdose reversals described, no EMS call was made. Participants reported several reasons for not doing so. Most frequent was the fear that despite the Good Samaritan law, a police response would result in arrest of the victim and/or witness for outstanding warrants, or sentence violations. Fears were based on individual and collective experience, and reinforced by the city of Denver’s aggressive approach to managing homelessness through increased enforcement of misdemeanors and the imposition of more recent ordinances, including a camping ban, to control space. The city’s homeless crisis was reflected as well in the concern expressed by housed PWID that an EMS intervention would jeopardize their public housing. Conclusion Results suggest that the immunity provided by the Good Samaritan law does not address PWIDs’ fear that their current legal status as well as the victim’s will result in arrest and incarceration. As currently conceived, the Good Samaritan law does not provide immunity for PWIDs’ already enmeshed in the criminal justice system, or PWID fearful of losing their housing. ]]>
机译:摘要背景耗材教育和纳诺酮分布(oend)培训,用于注射药物的人(PWID)强调召唤紧急医疗服务(EMS)的重要性。为了鼓励PWID这样做,科罗拉多颁布了一个良好的撒玛利亚法律,提供有限的免疫力,从起诉中拥有受控物质和/或毒品用具到过量受害者和善意的证人提供紧急援助。本文介绍了法律的影响,通过描述备忘录的PWIDS的经验逆转过量的经验以及他们对呼吁EMS支持的决定。方法两种互补研究的结果,基于半结构化访谈的定性研究,训练有素的PWID曾颠倒过一种或多次过量,以及检查PWIDS自我识别的健康问题的正在进行的基于实地的项目的项目是三角形化以描述和解释参与者的决定呼吁EMS。结果在大多数过量逆转中描述,没有EMS呼叫。与会者报告了几个原因,不这样做。最常见的是担心,尽管撒玛利亚法律良好,警察反应将导致逮捕受害者和/或证人的未偿还认股权证或刑事违规行为。恐惧是基于个人和集体经验,并通过丹佛市加强了通过加强轻言例的执行和征收更多条例来管理无家可归,包括露营禁令,控制空间。这座城市的无家可归的危机也反映在被居住的PWID中表达的关切,即EMS干预将危及其公共住房。结论结果表明,纯粹的撒玛利亚法律提供的免疫力并没有解决PWIDS的担忧,即他们目前的法律地位以及受害者将导致逮捕和监禁。正如目前构思的那样,好的撒玛利亚法律并没有为已经在刑事司法系统中已经陷入困境的PWIDS的免疫力,或者害怕失去住房。 ]]>

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号