Mandatory addiction treatment for people who use drugs: global health and human rights analysis: Table

Lunze, Karsten; Idrisov, Bulat; Golichenko, Mikhail; Kamarulzaman, Adeeba

doi:10.1136/bmj.i2943

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The core question this discussion raises is whether (paternalistic) restriction in short-term freedom of action can be demonstrated to restore, or establish, at least a basic level of personal autonomy for vulnerable adults in circumstances where this would otherwise be absent or threatened (see also Caplan, 2008;Lunze et al, 2016). If the answer is yes, deployment of interventionist approaches might legitimately be used to safeguard people's future (minimum) capabilities.…”

Section: Voluntarinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling Homeless People? Power, Interventionism and Legitimacy

Watts¹,

Fitzpatrick²,

Johnsen³

2017

J. Soc. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is intense debate over the legitimacy of interventions which seek behavioural change on the part of street homeless people. 'Hard' measures, such as arresting people for begging, are particularly controversial, but 'softer' interventions such as motivational interviewing have also prompted objections on grounds that they are paternalistic. At the same time, the 'non-interventionist' stance of some service providers has been accused of perpetuating harmful street lifestyles. Inspired by Ruth Grant's philosophically informed interrogation of the ethics of incentives, we propose a normative framework for application in this field. Via systematic exploration of Grant's three 'legitimacy standards' (legitimate purpose, voluntary response, effects on character), and an additional outcome-focussed fourth (effectiveness, proportionality and balance), we attempt to unsettle any intuitive assumption that noninterventionist approaches are necessarily more morally defensible than interventionist ones. We also, however, explicate the high ethical and empirical bar required to justify social control measures.

show abstract

Section: Voluntarinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling Homeless People? Power, Interventionism and Legitimacy

Watts¹,

Fitzpatrick²,

Johnsen³

2017

J. Soc. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Although secure care has not been specifically evaluated, there is an existing body of literature on the use of coercion in addiction treatment that raises substan tial doubts about the expected ability of secure care to reduce negative outcomes among people who use drugs. [5][6][7] Coercive interventions to treat addiction have been found to be inadequate in reducing neg ative substance use outcomes 8 while increasing mental duress 9 and risk of over dose. 10 Given that secure care infringes on the autonomy of those it targets, it would seem to us that when deciding whether to proceed with this intervention, the "bur den of proof" should be to show its effec tiveness.…”

Section: The Authors Respond To Comments On the Use Of Secure Care Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

The authors respond to comments on the use of secure care in youth

DeBeck

Kendall

Fast

et al. 2019

CMAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Consequently, given these facilities' lack of clinical effectiveness in treating addiction disorders and the problematic human rights implications of peoples' detention for addiction treatment without consent (Lunze, Idrisov et al 2016), twelve United Nations organizations issued a joint statement in 2012 on compulsory drug detention and rehabilitation centres, calling for their closure and replacement with voluntary, evidence-informed and rights-based health and social services in the community (UNODC 2012). Our goal was to follow-up on this call and to assess the magnitude of PWUD currently in compulsory treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compulsory treatment of drug use in Southeast Asian countries

Lunze

Lermet²,

Andreeva³

et al. 2018

International Journal of Drug Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In spite of international calls for the closure of compulsory detention centres, the number of facilities and detained people remained high in the seven countries included in the analysis. These officially reported figures are concerning regarding access to effective drug dependence treatment and given the potential for additional human rights abuses within compulsory detention centers. Further concerted policy and advocacy efforts should support transition of treatment for people with drug dependence towards human rights-based and evidence-based drug dependence treatment. Expansion of existing drug and HIV services in the community rather than compulsory treatment modalities will effectively address the region's drug and HIV burden.

show abstract

Mandatory addiction treatment for people who use drugs: global health and human rights analysis: Table

Cited by 21 publications

References 25 publications

Controlling Homeless People? Power, Interventionism and Legitimacy

Controlling Homeless People? Power, Interventionism and Legitimacy

The authors respond to comments on the use of secure care in youth

Compulsory treatment of drug use in Southeast Asian countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About