You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Methadone in Australia: A Cash Cow or Critical Healthcare?

in Deep Diveslast month

At the end of the day, the entire health care (in what ever way its organised) is a cash cow. So its no real surprise that also the treatment of addictions is part of that business.
The effectiveness of Methadone treatment has been debated for several reasons, also here in Germany. Mainly because handing it out daily to substitute Herion is not really solving the addiction problem of a person, unless there is a proper anti addiction therapy going along with it. Which is even more costly, and often in short supply.
On the other hand, there are some positive effects of a Methadone program. Mainly, that addict are taken "off the street", meaning they dont need to commit crimes or prostitute themself to make money for drugs. And that they dont use dirty syringes. That helps to reduce further medical cost again, by avoiding Hepatitis, HIV and such.
Well, I guess its also a matter of mentality in a country. I'd imagine that in the US its seen less acceptable than lets say in central Europe. I'm not sure how people look at addictions and addicts in Australia.

Sort:  

yes the pros vs cons makes it a hard decision.

i guess the Coroner's reports keep highlighting people who were on "the program" but never seemed to improve.

fundamentally, how to empower people to not become addicts in the first place?
also, how to ensure that it just doesn't become another Industry of guaranteed revenue?

ultimately, people can do whatever they choose - and that brings in the Angels & Devils to help/hinder & profit from the situation.

Like you say, it has been debated from time-to-time, but it is considered "accepted practice", and yet, it seems like a revolving door.

(I see much of these "established" norms, such as, recidivism, family abuse etc)

My current angst (i guess angst because it concerns me) is how mainstream language enters into Coroner's Reports and refuse to consider areas that would be deemed offensive.

For example, several people from the Trans community committed Suicide using Nitrites. (I think 5 people, with 4 of them connected & 1 seemingly not). All of them had troubled childhoods, all of them were on medication due to being diagnosed with behavioural issues, and all of them identifying as Trans.

There were many factors discussed, yet, not one mention that possibly their identifying as Trans was part of their mental illness process.
Regardless, of your thoughts for or against a person's lifestyle choices, to totally not see that "the current messaging of society" may have impacted or created a pattern of behaviour as possibly retarding the ability to find a solution.

Humanity seems to want to create blindspots to avoid questioning sensitive topics.
(You can input Church behaviours, Humanitarian organisations, Slavery, Racist behaviours, Suppression of Cultures & Peoples etc etc it holds back progress to ensure "the current accepted thing" is left to fester)

Well, life is very complicated, and for some even more than for others. So it would be naive to expect simple solutions that fit everybody. Its just a matter of how much effort (and money) the society is willing to put towards the problems of individuals.
Between the extremes of willingness to help, like the US on one end (low) and lets say Scandinavian countries on the other, whow would you rate Australia in that regard?

i have not researched it enough. it was more of a curiosity look into a program that regularly crops up in my readings.
my initial questions are:

how long has it been happening?
what is the rationale behind it?
how much is spent on it?
how do you measure if it is successful?
who is profiting?
are there opposing viewpoints? what alternative solutions are there?
is the program now an industry that will be hard to stop even if it no longer fit for purpose?

yes, definitely complicated!