A Feminist Approach to the Opioid Epidemic

Nonmedical prescription opioid abuse is an ongoing problem in America, with data showing an increase in this phenomenon in every state. This phenomenon found its genesis and growth within the masculine context of care. As this epidemic continues its threat on public health, it is time to consider alternative approaches to its treatment. One such approach is to implement a feminist ethic of care to improve the patient-provider relationship, foster autonomy, and to nurture national milieu Nurses General Nursing Article

Nonmedical prescription opioid abuse (NPOA) is an ongoing problem in America, with data showing an increase in this phenomenon in every state (Paulozzi & Xi, 2008). This phenomenon found its genesis and growth within the masculine context of care. As this epidemic continues its threat on public health, it is time to consider alternative approaches to its treatment. One such approach is to implement a feminist ethic of care to improve the patient-provider relationship, foster autonomy, and nurture the national milieu through interdependence. The means to this end may vary, but the nature of this perspective demands effective communication. Motivational interviewing represents a consistent, evidence-based means for exercising this approach to care.

The current perspective in treating the rising threat of NPOA relies on the masculine ethic of care. This view derives its treatment approach from the obligation of justice. That is to say, the masculine ethic of care is strongly concerned a more "hands off" approach to treatment. This duty of justice considers the patient as the sole, responsible party and, therefore, the fundamental agent of change and wellness. The way in which this is carried out is via a power dynamic in which the provider maintains an omniscient, fatherly role that emphasizes provider knowledge and patient obedience. Put another way, the masculine view stresses the notion that strong willpower and knowledge give rise to success. This method routinely omits empathy and patience from treatment and discounts the addiction research demonstrating impaired freedom of will (Vohs & Baumesiter, 2009). The result is a sense of failure and hopelessness felt by the patient.

The feminist approach highlights the importance of the patient-provider relationship through the exercise of empathy. Central to this perspective is interdependence and the balance of power between the provider and the patient. By maintaining this symmetry, then the provider may foster open-communication, elicit change-talk, and identify barriers and strengths to recovery. Furthermore, the nurse and patient can work together to use those factors to tailor the treatment plan and evoke patient autonomy in a way that increases the chance of positive health outcomes. This framework arises from a fundamental philosophy demonstrated throughout feminist history in which the marginalized provide the best insight into the provision of care within a society (Green, 2012).

In this model, the provider lessens the burden of responsibility by sharing that weight with the patient through a feminist ethic of care. That is not to imply that the provider strips the patient of power, but, instead, nurtures that power within the patient. This "motherly" role stands in strong contrast to the masculinity of the "fatherly" role. In this way, the provider-patient relationship takes a similar shape as a mother-child relationship, in which the provider guides the patient through treatment, fostering more and more autonomy along the way, until the patient ultimately becomes the sole decision-maker. This enables coping mechanisms and caregiving that equip the patient with the necessary skills to maintain wellness, rather than metaphorically kicking the patient from the nest. This feminist lens sets up the philosophy of care, but practice must align with this framework.

Ultimately, there are many ways to implement this approach. No matter the means in which one seeks to do so, the most important factor will be communication. Communication remains a tool in which the provider can cultivate relationships, derive patient-centered data, and tailor the plan of care. One method for communication is motivational interviewing. This form of counseling has demonstrated success in addiction treatment and in agreement with the feminist perspective. Motivational interviewing is a goal-oriented method that facilitates change by provoking intrinsic motivation from the patient, preserving patient-centered care (Miller, 1996). The practitioner remains nonjudgmental and maintains an open, equal relationship with the patient. As the provider paces with the patient, then the provider consistent demonstrates empathy, and allows the patient to argue for behavioral change. This provides the same level of autonomy and interdependence relative to feminist care models and, therefore, a practical match in implementing such models.

In conclusion, the feminist perspective of care in the treatment of NPOA offers an approach predictive of success. This ethic focuses on the patient-provider relationship to foster patient autonomy. By exercising empathy, then the caregiving, interdependent nature of feminism is preserved in a way that is congruent with the most recent research into addiction. Although there are many ways in which one can implement the feminist model, communication must remain a central component. Because of the caring, empathetic nature of this perspective, a nonjudgmental approach is paramount. Motivational interviewing is consistent with feminist approaches to care and, therefore, can be a valuable tool in effective communication.

References

Green B (2012) Applying Feminist Ethics of Care to Nursing Practice. J Nurs Care 1:111. doi:10.4172/2167-1168.1000111

Miller, W. R. (1996). Motivational interviewing: Research, practice, and puzzles. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 835-842. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(96)00044-5.

Paulozzi LJ, Xi Y. Recent changes in drug poisoning mortality in the United States by urban-rural status and by drug type. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(10):997-1005.

Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Addiction and free will. Addiction Research & Theory, 17(3), 231-235.

OP, I had never heard of the term "feminist ethic of care" until reading your article. It is an interesting concept, even if the terminology seems to rub me the wrong way at the moment. I'll have to do some reading and think it over to decide how I feel about this. My initial reaction was similar to what JKL wrote, that men can "care" in an effective way too and that "caring" shouldn't need to be a feminist issue. I see now that the concept you are writing about is not quite what I initially understood it to be. Admittedly, I've never been one for philosophy.

I want to commend you for taking the time to create a well-written article (with citations!). You may get some comments that disagree with the concept behind your writing, but I do hope that others recognize and appreciate that it was written in an academic and professional way.

Thanks for the post (one of the few) and trying to understand the more philosophic path I took. As a man (who cares), it definitely wasn't meant to be disparaging toward men and create divisiveness. It was meant to be more along the lines of comparing treatment approaches through different lenses, which are often much in the way we tend to think of maternal and paternal care.

While I find the OPs concept on the newer end I can appreciate what is trying to be conveyed. Especially in the mental health arena. I don't think this article is solely pointing to just how women are treated in medicine but how medicine has treated everyone since it's inception...including how women are undertreated and often dismissed.

Come on guys...give a girl a break! Sheesh...

Thanks! I'm a guy by the way, haha. Yeah, it was never meant to incite a war between the sexes.

And women can and do care in ways that are not "feminine" in the traditional sense.

This piece is essentially asking people to choose a positive "female" ethic over a negative "male" ethic as if each of those don't have a respective opposite, if you will.

Or maybe I'm just bound to disagree because I haven't noticed people fitting into boxes quite this neatly such that we could choose a philosophy of care that we agree with and simply label it masculine or feminine - and I wouldn't see the benefit of doing so.

Fair, but just to be clear I am not advocating for any patient to be pigeonholed into a certain treatment. I am also not blaming men. I was simply arguing that the more paternal role that we see throughout the system, may be one that isn't beneficial in many cases. Certainly, I've had patients that require a more paternal approach.

I think you mean 'maternal' and 'paternal' rather than masculine and feminine, although the patient treatment philosophies you're referring to aren't really as specific to gender as you're making them out to be.

"Maternal/Paternal" is likely better wording.

I did wonder if he meant "paternalistic" rather than "masculine." Although paternalism in healthcare is a well-known and documented phenomenon, is there such a thing as "maternalism"? I do not believe so, which causes his theory to sort of fall apart.

Paternalism is well-documented. As to the "fall apart" bit, there isn't likely a mountain of documentation that uses "maternalism" as its label. The lack of intervention or existence of its study is precisely what I argue for. Philosophically, there are social lenses we view things through to observe and evaluate the dynamics of a system.

Why is the graphic for this article a woman snorting a rail of coke?

HAHA...No idea, they put the same one on another article I wrote. I imagine stock photos for substance abuse are lacking.

Specializes in ER.

Just because you are a man doesn't give your essay more veracity. If I am a Jew and say the Holocaust never occurred, that does no make it true. Your gender is irrelevant.

I argue that, perhaps my response may very well have a ring of truth. Society, in the last 50 years, has become emasculated. Strong male role models are increasingly rare, with the breakdown of families, feminization of the educational system, lack of discipline of our youth, loss of religious values and delineated moral codes.

And what is the result? What I observe is rampant drug abuse, mental illness and violence. I see a decrease in civility. There are regular mass shootings of innocent people. The societal decay is self-evident.

Just because you are a man doesn't give your essay more veracity. If I am a Jew and say the Holocaust never occurred, that does no make it true. Your gender is irrelevant.

I argue that, perhaps my response may very well have a ring of truth. Society, in the last 50 years, has become emasculated. Strong male role models are increasingly rare, with the breakdown of families, feminization of the educational system, lack of discipline of our youth, loss of religious values and delineated moral codes.

And what is the result? What I observe is rampant drug abuse, mental illness and violence. I see a decrease in civility. There are regular mass shootings of innocent people. The societal decay is self-evident.

I didn't claim it gave more validity. I was simply stating this fact, because people seemed to assume a female must've written this.

Drug abuse has been rampant and in no way is correlated with the vague claim that male role models are less "strong" or that education has been "feminized" (something I'd like you expand on). Trying to find causation in the opioid epidemic isn't going to be traced to something like you're claiming nor would it be possible even if it were true.

I wasn't commenting on causality. I was simply saying that the paternalistic, masculine view of Society and the healthcare system likely contributes to resistance. Like I've stressed, it's not a claim that employs blame toward me. It's a social lens to examine the dynamics in a patient-provider relationship and the way it may shape treatment.

It seems my error, which I'd correct if I could, was to use the words "masculine/feminine" rather than "maternal/paternal." I thought I elaborated in that, but I can see and admit I didn't in an adequate way.

Another way to put it, is to compare the nursing model and the medical model. The medical model is frequently regarded as paternal, while the nursing model is seen as maternal. The results? Nursing is the most trusted profession, nurse practitioners see higher satisfaction rates and their patients often modify maladaptive lifestyle choices.

Interesting read! The premise of your article isn't inflammatory. And yet lots of people seem to be responding as if you are saying something egregious. We are in the middle of a documented opioid crises. Traditional approaches to NPOA have not been working and it is time to do something different. These are well-documented points.

I have to conclude that it's your phrasing (masculine/paternalistic and feminine/maternalistic) that's been rubbing people the wrong way. Admittedly, I'm not sure if I love it myself. Although interesting in theory, I think it draws attention away from your actual thesis (which seems to be a holistic model of compassionate care, something that most people could probably support). Instead, the focus turns towards stereotypical gender roles and how we might fit in as male and female HCPs within a binary system (maybe why some of the responses have been defensive?).

Anyways, I really enjoyed reading your article and hearing your perspective about this topic. Although not an academic article, the New Yorker published a pretty interesting piece recently about the opioid crisis. If you haven't already, it's well worth a read! And thanks for taking the time to write out such a well-researched piece.

Specializes in ICU + Infection Prevention.

The OP has used a bunch of supposition to split care along poorly defined labels. The OP didn't cite where it would actually be relevant to the claims. Only because OP's professor agrees with the virtue signalling is the OP able to get away with failing to cite anything to back up actual thrust of the paper. Presumed and moralistic labeling has little to do with real thrust of patient centered care, which is nothing new.

If this is what passes for scholarly writing in NP programs these days, it does not bode well for the future of the NP profession.

If nursing academia continues to act like client-centered-care is a rare phenomena with nursing piercing the night of paternalism, they will continue to reinforce the idea that they are in a self-affirming ivory tower, oblivious to the last 2+ decades of change in healthcare. Then again, they are the same academics who insist on wasting NP students' time with the same plethora of (non-NP) nursing theorists from undergrad. Why should we be surprised these same academics would pose a paternalistic/patient centered care dilemma as a masculine/feminine dichotomy to their students?

The OP has used a bunch of supposition to split care along poorly defined labels. The OP didn't cite where it would actually be relevant to the claims. Only because OP's professor agrees with the virtue signalling is the OP able to get away with failing to cite anything to back up actual thrust of the paper. Presumed and moralistic labeling has little to do with real thrust of patient centered care, which is nothing new.

If this is what passes for scholarly writing in NP programs these days, it does not bode well for the future of the NP profession.

If nursing academia continues to act like client-centered-care is a rare phenomena with nursing piercing the night of paternalism, they will continue to reinforce the idea that they are in a self-affirming ivory tower, oblivious to the last 2+ decades of change in healthcare. Then again, they are the same academics who insist on wasting NP students' time with the same plethora of (non-NP) nursing theorists from undergrad. Why should we be surprised these same academics would pose a paternalistic/patient centered care dilemma as a masculine/feminine dichotomy to their students?

Actually, as I said above, the nursing model isn't the problem. The medical problem, the domineering force in healthcare, largely is. There is a host of research into the paternal nature of the medical model.

Secondly, I'm not an undergrad student. I am, however, a graduate student.

I cited a paper by Green who builds off of Gilligan, theoretically.

This isn't a study nor something that is meant to be published in a nursing journal, something I haven't claimed. It's philosophic in nature.

Paternal/maternal is presumed dichotomous, unless you have a word for the in-between. Can it be a spectrum? Surely, most things are. By and large, however, the medical model emphasizes a relationship between the provider and patient that puts emphasizes the patient to be a passive-receiver of care and not an equal partner in the care, treatment planning, etc.

The current opioid crisis was brought about the marketing of OxyContin by it's manufacturer. That is the

plain, and simple truth.

This article just left me thinking: Huh?

How did the author overlook the obvious: The role of Capitalism in Modern Medicine.

It is amazingly gender neutral.

If you want to understand the opioid crisis, investigate and learn about the pharmaceutical company that makes OxyContin. It is all the education you will need on the topic.