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.

Specializes in Medical-Surgical/Float Pool/Stepdown.
Thanks! I'm a guy by the way, haha. Yeah, it was never meant to incite a war between the sexes.

The guys/girl comment was more of a play on words in my own special way because, well, I tend to be a bit "special" sometimes ;-). It really had nothing to do with genders but more so about the approaches of responding posts if that makes any more sense.

Issaiah1332,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to everyone (although I bristle slightly at your passing comment that those who complimented you or agree are looking at this more philosophically than the rest of us). :)

1) How does feminist theory reconcile the idea that "pain is whatever the patient says it is" (and we should treat it according to what patients say it is) with this: "the masculine approach is one that tends to generate blame, without empathy, and 'tough love' whether that is through the judicial system or evident in the care received?" I'm afraid it does matter, whether you wanted it to or not, because part of your opening statement was that the opioid crisis found it's "genesis and growth within the masculine context of care."

2) My view, in part, is that the opioid crisis is a direct result of missteps in attempt to quash "paternalistic" control and judgment with regard to the assessment of pain and the prescribing of pain medication. In other words, if you want to talk about this in terms of paternalism, many of us believe this crisis is the result of a sort of paternalism back-lash, if you will. If we must talk in such terms, I would argue that the idea to label a subjective report as a vital sign did not evolve from a masculine or paternalistic mode of thinking.

You want to say it doesn't matter how this got started but it certainly does, because if your theories are sloppy you risk doubling down on wrong ideas.

3) I'm sincerely curious why, even if we all agree that "paternalism" has no place in patient care, we must label our theory of care with anything remotely "gendered" (for lack of a better term). Why must we do that? You haven't told us that. You also appear not to have considered whether there is a potential "outcropping" of this feminist theory that would be more akin to "paternalism" - what would that be? Maternalism? Feministic care? Is this really a "care theory experiment" that we need to experience? We already know paternalism didn't work out too well. Is there a particular reason we can never aim for equilibrium rather than wide swings of the pendulum?

4) Lastly, you have presented an idea that may be helpful, and because you see it as decidedly not "paternalistic" you have said that it is a feminist theory. But just being different than a negative manifestation of "paternal" doesn't make something feminist. The opposite of "paternalistic" is positive manifestations of 'paternal'; I certainly hope you agree that there are positives to paternal, just as there are to maternal. Now we are back to square one, where not all things that have to do with "this" are bad, and all things that have to do with "that" are good.

Specializes in CCU, SICU, CVSICU, Precepting & Teaching.
I'm not entirely certain the opioid epidemic is the result of obedient and powerless patients.

I more get the sense that these patients were not taking their meds as prescribed, and HCPs sorta shot themselves in the foot when they decided that pain is whatever the patient says it is.

The "Pain is whatever the patient says it is" theory of patient care was a nice idea in theory, but once it was exposed to real patients kind of fell apart. There is that group of patients who believe they should experience NO pain EVER, and a generation of physicians who will tell them what they want to hear. "The nurses will make sure you don't have any pain." Once they've heard that, they don't believe me when I tell them that if I ensured that they had no pain ever, they wouldn't be breathing.

Specializes in Pediatric Critical Care.
4) Lastly, you have presented an idea that may be helpful, and because you see it as decidedly not "paternalistic" you have said that it is a feminist theory. But just being different than a negative manifestation of "paternal" doesn't make something feminist. The opposite of "paternalistic" is positive manifestations of 'paternal'; I certainly hope you agree that there are positives to paternal, just as there are to maternal. Now we are back to square one, where not all things that have to do with "this" are bad, and all things that have to do with "that" are good.

"Maternal/Paternal" is likely better wording.

I agree, but I can understand who you used the terms that you did, since they seem to be what was used in existing literature.

Example: Feminist Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

1) How does feminist theory reconcile the idea that "pain is whatever the patient says it is" (and we should treat it according to what patients say it is) with this: "the masculine approach is one that tends to generate blame, without empathy, and 'tough love' whether that is through the judicial system or evident in the care received?" I'm afraid it does matter, whether you wanted it to or not, because part of your opening statement was that the opioid crisis found it's "genesis and growth within the masculine context of care."

2) My view, in part, is that the opioid crisis is a direct result of missteps in attempt to quash "paternalistic" control and judgment with regard to the assessment of pain and the prescribing of pain medication. In other words, if you want to talk about this in terms of paternalism, many of us believe this crisis is the result of a sort of paternalism back-lash, if you will. If we must talk in such terms, I would argue that the idea to label a subjective report as a vital sign did not evolve from a masculine or paternalistic mode of thinking.

You want to say it doesn't matter how this got started but it certainly does, because if your theories are sloppy you risk doubling down on wrong ideas.

Great points to think about.

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?).

I agree 100 %

OP, I read your post yesterday but I didn't have time to respond. I knew as soon as I started reading it that it would generate a lot of friction. But I think you made several good points, eventhough I personally would have avoided assigning gender stereotype labels to the different approaches to the healthcare provider-patient relationship. The reason for that is twofold. Many people as has been clearly evidenced in this thread, tend to get quite defensive so it's probably not a very effective strategy to convey your message. The other reason is that I'm not convinced that labeling the different approaches as feminine and masculine is accurate.

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.

Just a minor point, but isn't it supposed to be either masculine vs feminine or masculinist vs feminist? To me the -ne describes someone's attributes but the -ist decsribes a person who subscribes to the related -ism. If you call a medical or nursing model feminist and state that feminism rocks, you'll likely lose half your audience and perhaps even send them into anaphylactic shock :lol2:

I understand the meaning of the word paternal and its male connotation but I never thought of the paternalistic physician-patient relationship in the olden days to be especially "masculine". Instead I've always interpreted paternalism as referring to a parent-child dynamic, rather than father-child. I take it to mean a medical model where the physician, the parent, has all the knowledge and knows what's best for the patient-child and will tell the child what's best for them and how to behave/act, and the patient is expected to obey.

OP, I think your post was interesting and a lot of what you say has merit, but trying to gender-label the different models was a mistake.

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.

Wow, Emergent. I have about a zillion questions after reading this. You're not the first person that I've heard espouse similar views but I have never understood what it means. I've asked many times but I have never received an answer that I understand. I'm being dead serious here. I'm hoping that you can supply some enlightenment.

Society, in the last 50 years, has become emasculated.

emasculate | Definition of emasculate in English by Oxford Dictionaries

1 (usually as adjective emasculated) Deprive (a man) of his male role or identity.

2 Make (someone or something) weaker or less effective.

What specifically does an emasculated society have or not have compared to society 50 years ago? (I'm not sure what to call that society... Omnipotent family jewels still firmly attached-society? Seriously, what's the appropriate name for a non-emasculated society? :)) Patriarchal?

Strong male role models are increasingly rare,

What's your definition of a strong male role model? I guess that I know and see so many men that I like or love and admire, that I'm having a problem understanding why you believe they are becoming increasingly rare. Perhaps our definitions of a strong male differ, which is why I'm asking if you can describe the attributes, personality traits and values that you equate with a strong man.

with the breakdown of families,

What does this mean? What's a broken family? Is it every combination that isn't mother, father and child? As I said, I don't understand what the things you write mean and I don't know how you think/feel. So, I'm asking. Were the old days when a women had no source of income of her own and was forced to stay in an abusive marriage because of the stigma of divorce and the inability to fend for herself financially, better than what we have today in our part of the world? Are two loveless or abusive and/or dysfunctional parents better for a child than two loving and emotionally stable moms or dads as long as the dysfunctional pair is 1 male + 1 female? What is your definition of the breakdown of families?

feminization of the educational system,

What specifically characterizes a "feminized" school system? What does it have or not have that a "masculinized" school system has or doesn't have?

lack of discipline of our youth,

The older generations have been complaining about the terrible youths since the dawn of mankind :) I'm sure that the generations older than yours had plenty to say about your generation, when you were younger. So what is it that young people should or shouldn't be doing that they did or didn't do, 50 years ago?

loss of religious values and delineated moral codes.

Are societies with a strong religious presence in your opinion inherently better and more moral than a more secular society? Is it religious values that makes a person good? Is religion necessary in order to be good and moral? Or can you also be a good person by drawing your moral code from a humanist persuasion? And I have to ask, are religious values masculine? I'm trying to figure out if this purported emasculation of society is somehow connected to the perceived loss of religious values?

What are religious values? The ten commandments? The golden rule? I'm a heathen ;) but I'm completely onboard with treating people with respect and kindness and I don't think that murder and theft is acceptable behavior (along with a few other things).

This is of course purely anecdotal... I've lived in a dozen countries, give or take. Some of them with basically no religious influence, like my own country and others whre religion seemed to be omni-present and most people would attend some kind of house of worship (depending on the dominant religion), on a very regular basis. And let me tell you, the U.S. and one country in the Middle East was were I was hit on more often than a stuck drawer by every married man within a 10-mile radius. Repeatedly. Persistent *****s. So, does religious values equal morality? Personally, I don't think it's religion that makes a person moral or ethical. Some people are religious and "good", some are religious and "bad". Some people are non-believers/atheists and "good", some are "bad".

I fear that you might think I'm nitpicking with this barrage of questions, but I'm being genuine here. The things you wrote are just catchphrases to me and their true meanings are cloaked in a murky fog.

What I'm basically asking is; what was so darn good about the 1950's? :)

Good thing we all have some of both masculine and feminine in varying unique and beautiful ways! Empathy has no 'assigned' sex. Does it??? :confused:

Every individual is so unique... :wacky:

I do agree love and empathy are the best treatments to help addicts. I found this about dogs and empathy while researching what you said, Issaiah.

Maybe they could help with opioid withdrawal treatment for dog lovers??? They probably already do, both boy and girl dogs alike, maybe some breeds more so than others too, like people maybe. Here's the link. Enjoy.Special abilities that show how smart dogs are - Business Insider

PS-Anyone know how to unattach an image please???!

Specializes in retired LTC.

This post confuses me, I admit. I never heard of NPOA. So I tried to google it. Didn't find anything although I only glanced at google. There is a snarky definition listed by Urban Dictionary. Not what OP meant, I think.

As I tried to give some serious reading attention, almost immediately I was thinking women commit suicide by poison (feminine) and men commit suicide by gun (or something more violent, a masculine approach).

Then I had the crazy association of Progressive Insurance's Flo, in that new TV commercial where some man shushes her with "a man is speaking".

To OP - am seriously "clueless in Magnolia" re your post. I tried. But I will tell you it is one that is well written with background references. I'm thinking thesis/dissertation.

I wish you well with your career and education program.

Specializes in 15 years in ICU, 22 years in PACU.
Seriously? Sorry, but this article seems like divisive, stereotyping nonsense generated by the woman's studies dept of academia.

That bad, bad patriarchy doing everything wrong! Those uncaring men responsible for all our problems.

Maybe a man will counter with an article claiming that female dominance of the regulatory system is what twisted the arms of the medical community to meet the pain goals of a generation of weaklings, who lacked strong male role models in their lives.

OP's big goal is to be published. Ya know, the written equivalent of talking to hear yourself talk.

Read it, and would like my 5 minutes back please and thank you.

Specializes in ICU + Infection Prevention.
AThe medical problem, the domineering force in healthcare, largely is. There is a host of research into the paternal nature of the medical model.

Medicine is still defined paternalism. It's the 80s/90s. Keep drinking that koolaid. How about you provide modern validated evidence based on modern medical education? Things have been changing!

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

1. You cited Green who published in a no-name OA journal, in their third-ever-issue. That is not a strong source. You drew on it to focus on this feminine-masculine care split, which the author based on Gilligan's work, citing her popular, but non-peer-reviewed (and often criticized) book from early 1980s... weak again. Your definitions are ill-defined.

2. You quoted a 1996 paper by Miller who pioneered some pretty cool client-centered care methodologies in psychotherapy in the early 1980s... which is where nursing academia likes to pretend other health fields are stuck IME YOMV. You basically just declare this to be feminist without backing up your claim.

3. You missed the relevance of the origin of the opioid epidemic. You don't demonstrate that paternalistic or "masculine care" is a progenitor of the epidemic vis-a-vis merely being a potential point of failure in the treatment of addiction (where Miller's work is applicable). Others have postulated that excesses in client-focused care (which you categorize as feminist) in pain treatment are contributory to the opioid crisis. To gloss over such an obvious point when you are making a claim about the positivity of feminism as defined by client centered care is hypocritical.

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

I was saying you wrote a bunch of supposition based on a weak source and nebulous philosophy. Those are the defining characteristic of a typical graduate (and undergraduate) paper in a nursing theory class. When otherwise well written, such "scholarship" usually receives an A grade, a sad commentary on nursing academia.

Specializes in SICU, trauma, neuro.

I didn't read the articles as they're not linked (and I have about 6.022x10^23 better things to do than hunt for them)... but from the titles I can't tell if there's any causative link between paternalism and opioid abuse/addiction? I see a title about feminist ethics, one about statistics, one about addiction...and the 20+ yr old one about motivational interviewing?

What has been your experience with paternalism? I'm curious because paternalism has been considered outdated for quite a long time. I attended nursing school in the early 2000s, and we were HEAVILY taught about advocacy and autonomy. The ONE physician who I have heard of chiding a family for questioning the surgeons (for merely pointing out a discrepancy among the POC as told by different team members) was FIRED.

By contrast, the idea that pain is whatever the pt says it is seems like it would put pressure on the provider to do what the pt wants, even if that goes against his/her professional judgment. (Speaking of **unreasonable** demands.) Don't even get me started on HCAHPS nonsense!