Opioid Addiction Case Study
Is opioid addiction criminal and punishable, or is it a disease of addiction? Why? I would say that the opioid addiction should be approached more as a disease of addiction than being criminal and punishable. Addiction is caused by behavioral, environmental and biological factors. People with addiction should not be blamed for suffering from the disease. All people make choices about whether to use substances. However, people do not choose how their brain and body respond to drugs and alcohol, which is why people with addiction cannot control their use while others can.
`
Who is responsible and why? What ethical principles support your decisions?
I would say that each part has a responsibility towards the opioid epidemic because, in …show more content…
They also published ghostwritten articles in medical and consumer publications and launched disease awareness campaigns. They funneled money to medical advocacy groups, including the U.S. Pain Foundation ($2.9 million during 2012-2017) and the American Academy of Pain Medicine ($1.2 million) to promulgate messages such as "restricting opioids in any way disadvantages pain patients" and "the needs of patients with [opioid use disorder] must be balanced with the needs of pain patients." (Basen, 2017). A good ethical principle that could be applied is truthfulness in order to lessen the responsibility of the drug manufacturers. When it comes to creating a drug, the manufacturers should be honest when representing medical products because they are making drugs that could cause potential harm to a population. At least if they companies were honest about their product, then it could be in the choice of the patient whether to take or drug or not even when exposed to the side effects of taking the …show more content…
Generic, high-risk opioids are inexpensive compared to their safer counterparts. Insurance companies are more interested in increasing their profits than helping their members. These companies cover generic opioids and make them available without prior approval. For example, one-third of 35 million people covered by Medicare have access to Butrans, a painkiller skin-patch that contains a less risky opioid, but lidocaine patches, which are not addictive cost more than other generic pain drug and is required for patients get prior approval from the insurer for them (Ornstein 2017). A good ethical principle that could be applied to the insurance companies is beneficence. If insurance companies were not so consumed with the amount of money then they might start to realize that they are hurting individuals in the process. An insurance company should cut off the opioids that are resulting in addiction and cover the costs of their safe counterparts. They should take positive action by requiring prior approval towards all opioids because if they come in contact with their medical professional then there is an agreement that is being exchanged to ensure that the opioid is a necessary
`
Who is responsible and why? What ethical principles support your decisions?
I would say that each part has a responsibility towards the opioid epidemic because, in …show more content…
They also published ghostwritten articles in medical and consumer publications and launched disease awareness campaigns. They funneled money to medical advocacy groups, including the U.S. Pain Foundation ($2.9 million during 2012-2017) and the American Academy of Pain Medicine ($1.2 million) to promulgate messages such as "restricting opioids in any way disadvantages pain patients" and "the needs of patients with [opioid use disorder] must be balanced with the needs of pain patients." (Basen, 2017). A good ethical principle that could be applied is truthfulness in order to lessen the responsibility of the drug manufacturers. When it comes to creating a drug, the manufacturers should be honest when representing medical products because they are making drugs that could cause potential harm to a population. At least if they companies were honest about their product, then it could be in the choice of the patient whether to take or drug or not even when exposed to the side effects of taking the …show more content…
Generic, high-risk opioids are inexpensive compared to their safer counterparts. Insurance companies are more interested in increasing their profits than helping their members. These companies cover generic opioids and make them available without prior approval. For example, one-third of 35 million people covered by Medicare have access to Butrans, a painkiller skin-patch that contains a less risky opioid, but lidocaine patches, which are not addictive cost more than other generic pain drug and is required for patients get prior approval from the insurer for them (Ornstein 2017). A good ethical principle that could be applied to the insurance companies is beneficence. If insurance companies were not so consumed with the amount of money then they might start to realize that they are hurting individuals in the process. An insurance company should cut off the opioids that are resulting in addiction and cover the costs of their safe counterparts. They should take positive action by requiring prior approval towards all opioids because if they come in contact with their medical professional then there is an agreement that is being exchanged to ensure that the opioid is a necessary