Back from the dead: Shocking video shows incredible moment dying heroin addict is brought back to life by wonder drug

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

I don't know why they are saying Narcan is new though. I graduated 27 years ago, and used it then in training, and many times on the street.

but it's new, the dailymail says so!

The moment an overdosing heroin addict was revived by a new life-saving drug has been released as campaigners push for the medication to be provided to police officers.

[cdneh 3,112]

but it's new, the dailymail says so!

lol.. my good goodness

[GandD 5,966]

Under kenyan care how will they handle this?

How will Obama care affect you?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I personally think genetics have little to do with it. Of course if you're raised around people that are addicts, then you're chances of becoming one yourself are increased. Does that mean that children raised in good households by good parents will never become addicts? Of course not.

On the flip side of that argument I can see people saying, "My parents were addicts, so that's why I get high" It's simply another excuse for people to not take responsibility for their actions and blame it on someone else. That's the problem with this country. It's always someone else's fault.

Genetics have little to do with it. There are predispositions certainly but not everyone falls prey to them. It has as much, if not more to do with environment and nurture.

Controversially, the same thinking also applies to certain mental illnesses and homosexuality.

[james&olya 1,121]

Genetics have little to do with it. There are predispositions certainly but not everyone falls prey to them. It has as much, if not more to do with environment and nurture.

Controversially, the same thinking also applies to certain mental illnesses and homosexuality.

Genetics has very much to do with having neuro-psychological impairments that make successful adaptations to modern elementary classroom performance more difficult. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder being just one of many. Research on these children has shown that, contrary to popular (and un-informed) opinion, those children medicated to help them successfully adapt to classroom life have rates of subsequent substance abuse in the same range as the 'normal' population. Children with ADHD that do not get treatment or get it too late to avoid the crippling psychological consequences of severe low self-esteem have very high rates of substance abuse. This body of research has led some of us to speculate that the documented hereditability of alcoholism and substance abuse in general may be mostly or entirely explained by this indirect causation.

[james&olya 1,121]

I'm a former paramedic. And yes, like it or not,saving junkies was part of the job. Or any other unpopular group of people. Pre hospital care doesn't discriminate in the way John Doe sitting at home does.

I don't know why they are saying Narcan is new though. I graduated 27 years ago, and used it then in training, and many times on the street.

If they plan on giving that to non medical people, they better put this on the label: Stand back after administering. Patient will frequently come up swinging. You have just ruined the high they paid quite a bit of money for. Your efforts will not be appreciated.

You are absolutely correct! Narcan has been around quite a long time, nothing really new about it. Taking away a junkies high can be risky. Another risk with it being too easily available is that some people may not realize its effects are brief and must be readministered frequently to avoid respiratory arrest in the case of overdose. I personally am in favor of paramedics having this available for use.

Many people would be surprised to find out just who among them are narcotic addicts. Drug addiction knows no socio-economic boundaries. For example, Rush Limbaugh.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Because you can't choose your parents. If you're parents are drug/alcohol abusers, is that your fault?

So? I was not commenting on the morality of it.. I claim that there is a genetic disposition to addiction.. You seem to be suggesting that the only factor that matters is nurture.

On the main question: Do we give first responders the drug to save those ODing and training on its use. On the face of it this seems to be an easy question but it's not... Everything comes down to resources.. Lets say for NY the cost will be 500,000 per year for the drug and training and it saves on average 50 people per year.... Now a study surfaces that suggests that 500,000 spent on education on drug use for middle age schools will prevent drug usage and on average 75 less people per year will OD.. You have 500,000 to spend, where do you put the money? Choose the education route and of course all the world will hear about is how you denied the drug to first responders.

Resources are limited, we have to make choices. Its easy to focus on the choices not made and point fingers and call people evil.

[james&olya 1,121]

So? I was not commenting on the morality of it.. I claim that there is a genetic disposition to addiction.. You seem to be suggesting that the only factor that matters is nurture.

On the main question: Do we give first responders the drug to save those ODing and training on its use. On the face of it this seems to be an easy question but it's not... Everything comes down to resources.. Lets say for NY the cost will be 500,000 per year for the drug and training and it saves on average 50 people per year.... Now a study surfaces that suggests that 500,000 spent on education on drug use for middle age schools will prevent drug usage and on average 75 less people per year will OD.. You have 500,000 to spend, where do you put the money? Choose the education route and of course all the world will hear about is how you denied the drug to first responders.

Resources are limited, we have to make choices. Its easy to focus on the choices not made and point fingers and call people evil.

Careful there, Palin might accuse a group making that kind of decision a 'death panel'!

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

So? I was not commenting on the morality of it.. I claim that there is a genetic disposition to addiction.. You seem to be suggesting that the only factor that matters is nurture.

On the main question: Do we give first responders the drug to save those ODing and training on its use. On the face of it this seems to be an easy question but it's not... Everything comes down to resources.. Lets say for NY the cost will be 500,000 per year for the drug and training and it saves on average 50 people per year.... Now a study surfaces that suggests that 500,000 spent on education on drug use for middle age schools will prevent drug usage and on average 75 less people per year will OD.. You have 500,000 to spend, where do you put the money? Choose the education route and of course all the world will hear about is how you denied the drug to first responders.

Resources are limited, we have to make choices. Its easy to focus on the choices not made and point fingers and call people evil.

The morality is what I was talking about. As I posted after this, it still boils down to choice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Genetics has very much to do with having neuro-psychological impairments that make successful adaptations to modern elementary classroom performance more difficult. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder being just one of many. Research on these children has shown that, contrary to popular (and un-informed) opinion, those children medicated to help them successfully adapt to classroom life have rates of subsequent substance abuse in the same range as the 'normal' population. Children with ADHD that do not get treatment or get it too late to avoid the crippling psychological consequences of severe low self-esteem have very high rates of substance abuse. This body of research has led some of us to speculate that the documented hereditability of alcoholism and substance abuse in general may be mostly or entirely explained by this indirect causation.

People like to cite 'research' to validate their opinion, without actually citing it, if you know what I mean. I'd say social and behavioural phenomena are too complex to be defined by genetics alone. I'm not saying that it doesn't play 'a' role, just that people like to overstate is importance.

[Sarah Elle-Même 660]

Occam's razor be damned. Behavior of dependence (whether it be drugs, alcohol, food, etc) is so much more complicated than ONE single cause. Saying environment alone or genetics alone create addiction is like saying cancer was caused 100% by X. Or that natural selection occurs when junkies die of overdose. Just because it's a simple explanation doesn't make it true. It's part genetics, part exposure, part environmental (including interpersonal relationships and experiences), part other possible factors yet undetermined. There is still so much going on in the brain and the central nervous system that we don't really understand. How do SSRI's and anesthesia work? Ask any (reputable) psychiatrist or anesthesiologist. We don't fully know to this day.

I'll say also that just because some scientist publishes a paper in a journal, doesn't mean the research or study is very credible. There's a lot of bogus papers out there, or research that is published somewhere and gets debunked a year or few years later. You have to read not just the article, but the reviews from peer PI's (Principal Investigators) as well. It's scary how many scientists misrepresent statistics, or just plain don't understand them.

Naloxone is indeed old news and the discussion to make it available over the counter is not new either. I see good intentions but also a medical ethics quandary. How can overdosed patients consent to treatment of any kind? They are usually not the ones self-administering. Rehabilitative drug treatment, depending on the drug, is at best very marginally successful long term. There are addiction treatment pharmaceutical trials in the works right now as well, and there is reason to be optimistic. To say that anyone who is an addict cannot change and would be better off dead is not only inhumane but also stupid. I've known plenty of addicts who now live productive, sober lives. Their success I think is largely attributed to the fact that they had a supportive group of friends and family who wouldn't let them just fade away and die.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Alcoholism is a fundamentally social problem. You might be predisposed with regards to being addicted, but at the same time it could be something learned or passed on behaviorally. Having addicted parents might make someone follow that path (that's not rocket science), similarly it might have the opposite effect. None can definitively say that having gene X directly causes a person to be addicted to alcohol. That's ridiculous.

The obvious point here is that if alcoholism were genetic it would be incurable. As we know, it isn't. People can change their behaviours regardless of what's in their genes.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Martin Wellbourne

[Sarah Elle-Même 660]

Alcoholism is a fundamentally social problem. You might be predisposed with regards to being addicted, but at the same time it could be something learned or passed on behaviorally. Having addicted parents might make someone follow that path (that's not rocket science), similarly it might have the opposite effect. None can definitively say that having gene X directly causes a person to be addicted to alcohol. That's ridiculous.

Addiction is not fundamentally one thing. That's just stating your opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The negative behaviour of individual (alcoholism) in a context (society) where the consequences of that persons negative behaviour have an impact not only on that individual but their friends, family members and their community can't be described as a social problem? I don't see why not...

Note, that's an entirely different point than saying that alcoholism (or drug addiction) has a single root cause. It obviously doesn't.