File(s) under permanent embargo
Is groin injecting an ethical boundary for harm reduction?
journal contribution
posted on 2008-12-01, 00:00 authored by Peter MillerPeter Miller, N Lintzeris, L ForzisiBackground
Femoral vein (or groin) injecting by street drug users is an emerging public health issue in the UK. It has been proposed that groin injecting is becoming normalised among UK injecting drug users (IDUs), yet harm reduction strategies are currently piecemeal and some may be crossing the boundary of responsible provision of information. This paper discusses the interventions available to service providers dealing with groin injecting and explores the utility of ethical frameworks for informing service provider decisions.
Methods
Methods analysis of possible service provider responses using White and Popovits’ ethical decision-making framework.
Results
The use of ethical frameworks suggest that different types of groin injectors should receive different interventions. Injectors for whom the groin is a site of ‘last resort’ should be given information about how to inject there less dangerously, whereas ‘convenience’ groin injectors should be actively encouraged to inject elsewhere.
Conclusion
Groin injecting is a behaviour which represents a boundary for some harm reduction practices (such as providing ‘how to’ booklets to all injectors) as well as being an argument for more complex and environmentally appropriate harm reduction responses such as drug consumption rooms and training IDUs to maintain healthier injecting sites.
Femoral vein (or groin) injecting by street drug users is an emerging public health issue in the UK. It has been proposed that groin injecting is becoming normalised among UK injecting drug users (IDUs), yet harm reduction strategies are currently piecemeal and some may be crossing the boundary of responsible provision of information. This paper discusses the interventions available to service providers dealing with groin injecting and explores the utility of ethical frameworks for informing service provider decisions.
Methods
Methods analysis of possible service provider responses using White and Popovits’ ethical decision-making framework.
Results
The use of ethical frameworks suggest that different types of groin injectors should receive different interventions. Injectors for whom the groin is a site of ‘last resort’ should be given information about how to inject there less dangerously, whereas ‘convenience’ groin injectors should be actively encouraged to inject elsewhere.
Conclusion
Groin injecting is a behaviour which represents a boundary for some harm reduction practices (such as providing ‘how to’ booklets to all injectors) as well as being an argument for more complex and environmentally appropriate harm reduction responses such as drug consumption rooms and training IDUs to maintain healthier injecting sites.
History
Journal
International journal of drug policyVolume
19Issue
6Pagination
486 - 491Publisher
Elsevier B.V.Location
Amsterdam, The NetherlandsPublisher DOI
ISSN
0955-3959eISSN
1873-4758Language
engPublication classification
C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journalCopyright notice
2008, Crown copyrightUsage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedLicence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC