Evidence and morality in harm-reduction debates: can we use value-neutral arguments to achieve value-driven goals?

Abstract

It is common to argue that politicians make selective use of evidence to tacitly reinforce their moral positions, but all stakeholders combine facts and values to produce and use research for policy. The drug policy debate has largely been characterised in terms of an opposition between evidence and politics. Focusing on harm reduction provides useful ground to discuss a further opposition proposed by evidence advocates, that between evidence and morality. Can evidence sway individuals from their existing moral positions, so as to "neutralise" morality? And if not, then should evidence advocates change the way in which they frame their arguments? To address these questions, analysis of N = 27 interviews with stakeholders actively involved in drug policy and harm reduction debates in England, UK and New South Wales, Australia, was conducted. Participants' accounts suggest that although evidence can help focus discussions away from values and principles, exposure to evidence does not necessarily change deeply held views. Whether stakeholders decide to go with the evidence or not seems contingent on whether they embrace a view of evidence as secular faith; a view that is shaped by experience, politics, training, and role. And yet, morality, values, and emotions underpin all stakeholders' views, motivating their commitment to drug policy and harm reduction. Evidence advocates might thus benefit from devising strategies to morally and emotionally engage audiences. This paper aims to develop better tools for analysing the role of morality in decision-making. Using tools from disciplines such as moral psychology is relevant to the study of the politics of evidence-based policymaking.

‘Being human’ and the ‘moral sidestep’ in drug policy: Explaining government inaction on opioid-related deaths in the UK

“…They may have a justifiable reluctance to take on the task of arbitrating on moral positions, as well as on the research evidence (Humphreys & Piot, 2012). But we should recognise that our recommendations are inherently value-laden (Zampini, 2018). Recommendations to reduce drug-related deaths typically prioritise compassion and the right to life over th…”

“…It is interesting in what it reveals about how ministers deal with pressure that emanates from the public health policy constellation. It is also interesting to note the moral content to which this sidestep is taken, as drug policy is often decided on moral rather than evidential grounds (Zampini, 2018). The sidestep does not move to a morality of care or compassion, but rather to abstinent purity and conformity.…”

Depenalization, diversion and decriminalization: A realist review and programme theory of alternatives to criminalization for simple drug possession

“…The distribution of power and resources in a society will determine who controls whose consumption. The second highlights the cultural role of morality in shaping policies and their effects (Zampini, 2018). For example, Ireland's current consideration of alternative measures to criminalization follows a broader process of social liberalization, which has included referendum votes to legalize gay marriage (in 2015) and abortion (in 2018).…”

Implementation and sustainability of safe consumption sites: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

“…Diverse socio-political contexts may vary in their tolerance of harm reduction approaches and endorsement of moralizing narratives surrounding substance use [ 46 ]. There is evidence that these moralistic views are difficult to change, even with robust scientific evidence to contradict such beliefs [ 47 ]. Recent evidence suggests that policymakers are more encouraged to pursue interventions such as a SCS in their local communities in the wake of new evidence of success from other harm reduction interventions that have been evaluated in their jurisdictions [ 13 ].…”