"Safe Injection Houses"- What's This?

I gotta tell ya'll, this was a tough article to write objectively, I wanna hear what you think! I had strong opinions on this subject at first, and then I did some research. Not saying my thoughts changed, but new questions did pop into my mind. "Safe injection Houses" are here in the USA. What are they and what do you think about them? Nurses General Nursing Article

A "safe house" for drug users to use drugs with clean equipment and trained professional supervision using public funding.....what the what????!!! Am I reading this correctly? This instantly stirred up strong feelings and opinions for this nurse, mom and taxpayer. While this concept was news to me, "safe injection houses", which are currently illegal in the United States, have secretly been in existence in the US for at least 3 years. The idea is to provide drug users with clean needles and equipment as well as medical supervision by professionals in the event of overdose. The staff on hand is also available to guide, educated and provide services to willing participants who wish to get clean. Injection sites are legal in countries such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Switzerland. This is different than the clean needle exchange programs that at one time were also illegal in the US and now are legal in 33 states.

I read an article in the New York Post about two researchers who secretly evaluated a "safe injection house" in the United States. This sparked my interest to research more on the subject so that I could form a more educated opinion on the matter. According to a New York Post article, two researchers have been evaluating a "safe injection house" for over two years and recently published their report online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. "As a condition of their research, they didn't disclose the location of the facility - which is unsanctioned and potentially illegal - or the social service agency running it", reports The New York Post.

According to the researchers, the underground space consists of two rooms. One "injection room" with stainless steel clean stations with stools and mirrors. Drugs such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, and pain pills are allowed to be used there, however smoking is not. The second room is where participants go afterward to be monitored by trained "non-medically licensed" staff. Not much information was provided through the research. It is presented that over 100 participants utilized the "safe injection house" more than 2,500 times. They released that only 2 overdoses were reported and one death at the site itself, but little to no additional information on population, cost service etc due to the secrecy of the program.

Such sites have been backed by lawmakers in New York and California, along with officials in cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, and Ithaca, New York in an effort to combat overdose rates as well as drug use related transmission of Hepatitis C and HIV. This report may help support lawmakers in their efforts to pass laws allowing "safe injections" to exist in the US. As one would expect, there are many opponents to "safe injection sites", for a number of reasons. According to the New York Post article: "critics have argued these places may undermine prevention and treatment, and seem to fly in the face of laws aimed at stopping use of deadly illicit drugs."

As nurses we have a duty to do no harm. If we know that these drugs are so harmful that they cause death, have long term side effects and addiction, how would we stand a collective group on this subject? It is an interesting topic that I am sure we will hear more about in the coming years. The initial response from those I talked to casually about this subject was that this is the worst idea anyone has ever come up with and how on earth did we get here as a society? After much discussion some interesting questions regarding this and other similar topics arose creating some "grey areas" in the thoughts.

In researching this, I think I am left with more questions than I answered for myself. I would love to hear what you all think. Do such places encourage drug use though ease of access and legal use? Would new users take advantage of "safe injection sites" to try new drugs? Who pays for these places? Does the cost of running them outweigh what is spent yearly in Emergency Room visits and hospitalizations for overdose or addiction treatments? What kind of regulations and research are needed to determine the societal worth of such places? What do you think?

Report reveals 'safe house' where heroin users shoot up under supervision | New York Post

Specializes in ICU, LTACH, Internal Medicine.
Where do these hard-core addicts get the money for their daily highs? And how much of that type of crime is drug related? I've been robbed at gunpoint a few times. The thought of the robber hopping over to get high in a safe and supervised situation makes me ill.

Many of them beg, prostitute themselves and use cheap, low-qualty drugs which kill them quicker and more painful. Real hard vore addicts will do pretty much anything to avoid police because being in custody = withdrawal.

Since we as society have no tools to force addicts into treatment (which is, in turn, notoriuosly low effective), everything that remains is to make using safer for everyone. This way, at least, you and me, hopefully, won't have those 3 to 6 months of soul-searching after an accident poke with insulin needle waiting for HIV and hep panel "window" to pass.

Although I too do not support making those "safe houses" pretty much about everywhere, especially near schools and known tourist zones.

Studies from Insite showed no significant increase in crime in the area since its opening

I don't doubt it. But that doesn't mean a significant amount of drug-related crime was not already in existence.

Nope, nope, nope, nope. Why are we rewarding dangerous and addictive behaviors with zero consequences? This sounds like such a bad idea.

I teeter on the edge of "people are going to do it anyways so let's keep them from clogging up our ERs, sounds like a decent idea" to This is ridiculous, it provides no real accountability or change for the problem and I despise anyone who thinks this is ok" Consideing our AG hates pot.. I don't really see this taking off in a federally funded way in America. If it did, I would avoid those areas for sure.

Many of them beg, prostitute themselves and use cheap, low-qualty drugs which kill them quicker and more painful. Real hard vore addicts will do pretty much anything to avoid police because being in custody = withdrawal.

Since we as society have no tools to force addicts into treatment (which is, in turn, notoriuosly low effective), everything that remains is to make using safer for everyone. This way, at least, you and me, hopefully, won't have those 3 to 6 months of soul-searching after an accident poke with insulin needle waiting for HIV and hep panel "window" to pass.

Although I too do not support making those "safe houses" pretty much about everywhere, especially near schools and known tourist zones.

I see how it makes it safer for the users, but not for their victims. I don't doubt that they try to avoid arrest, but many of them get quit bold due to their addictions and do end up in jail/prison.

Some may prostitute themselves, but some prostitute others. And I have no statistics, but I believe that when someone decides to put a gun to someone else's head for 40 dollars, they're not usually taking the money to pay their water bill.

I see how it makes it safer for the users, but not for their victims. I don't doubt that they try to avoid arrest, but many of them get quit bold due to their addictions and do end up in jail/prison.

Some may prostitute themselves, but some prostitute others. And I have no statistics, but I believe that when someone decides to put a gun to someone else's head for 40 dollars, they're not usually taking the money to pay their water bill.

Im struggling with your logic because this crime is already happening without the safe injection sites. The injection sites themselves do not increase crime in the area.

so to decrease those who use, you're either locking them up (which let's face it, the government has tried doing this for years and the problem has not gotten better) or you get them into rehabilitation. The safe injection sites act as a gateway for these users to get help. Those who use the sites are encouraged to seek treatment and I believe one of the studies in the link I shared showed an increase in those who accessed rehabilitation.

you and I may have to agree to disagree, but I'm curious what you would propose instead and what literature backs it up?

Google harm reduction. In response to OP, I do think that this is a great idea.

Im struggling with your logic because this crime is already happening without the safe injection sites. The injection sites themselves do not increase crime in the area.

so to decrease those who use, you're either locking them up (which let's face it, the government has tried doing this for years and the problem has not gotten better) or you get them into rehabilitation. The safe injection sites act as a gateway for these users to get help. Those who use the sites are encouraged to seek treatment and I believe one of the studies in the link I shared showed an increase in those who accessed rehabilitation.

you and I may have to agree to disagree, but I'm curious what you would propose instead and what literature backs it up?

My response is purely emotional. I simply don't believe in rewarding and enabling criminal behavior. And it's not so much the drugs I have a problem with, but all the crime that goes along with their production, distribution, and use.

My point of view has nothing to do with an increase in crime. The crime already exists. I'm fine with locking them up or sending them to rehab ...but not with supplying needles and supervised, "safe" places to get high. I'd rather reserve that level of care and concern for the victims of drug-related crime.

While I do commend the practice of any pursuit to reduce harm, we do have to remember addiction is a disease. Unfortunately, in the US, it is treated as a crime. I have worked for needle exchanges that hand out clean needles to any patrons with or without a deposit to reduce harm. In response to the flood of synthetic Fentanyl flooding the heroin market we have even been able to hand out Narcan kits and educate clients on how to administer the drug if their friend is in trouble (no amount of rescue breaths will revive someone with nuchal rigidity). In states like California were you have to have a separate prescription for the syringe to administer your prescribed injection (I ran into this issue with my depo shot) this is pretty groundbreaking. In the end, the loss of productivity, use of resources, loss of lives, contraction of chronic illnesses, and prevention of other comorbidities while still allowing people to make destructive choices encourages people to utilize the services and outweighs the enabling of the behavior.

I had more than one person come in for clean needles and ask me if we offered counseling or financial assistance for rehab. All we did was give them more needles and refer them to the local NA chapters and methadone clinics. It wasn't poor management, that was just all the resources we had.

The problem is we don't offer treatment for the disease itself. It would be like staffing a McDonalds with nurses for Diabetics and Heart Failure patients to come eat at and be monitored but not offering them medications.

Both my parents have Hep C from using IV drugs in the 80's before anyone really cared about sharing needles. By some miracle, my mother did not pass it on to me. I watched her suffer through 3 rounds of Interferon with no change in viral load before a cure was developed. So this is really a cause I care about and may have an alternative perspective to than most health care providers.

But if you don't have a license you can't help anyone. Providing a "safe space" for someone to bring in street drugs to use while you monitor them is not only unethical, but irresponsible. You are basically communicating to them it is ok and safe to self administer who knows what because you are there. That is a liability no licensed medical professional should ever accept. If I administer conscious sedation, I am assessing and recording vitals at a minimum of every 5 minutes, and I know exactly what is going into the person and how much. This sounds like a great way to loose your license and not be able to do any good for anyone ever again.

I feel the same way about "Hangover Clinics". There is no such thing as a waiver full proof enough to get you out of giving your patient permission to binge drink themselves to death or into an MVI, you're at risk of them withholding medical history that would contraindicate fluid resuscitation of that nature or supplements commonly offered. Lab Work indicated given the circumstances is completely disregarded. It's a risk management nightmare. But with the "Safe houses" youre volunteering for that liability. Your license doesn't evaporate just because you are working for free.

No Canadian nurse or doctor has ever lost their licence working in a needle exchange or safe site.

I'm really noticing a huge difference between American posters and the rest of the world in this thread

Specializes in CMSRN, hospice.
My response is purely emotional. I simply don't believe in rewarding and enabling criminal behavior. And it's not so much the drugs I have a problem with, but all the crime that goes along with their production, distribution, and use.

My point of view has nothing to do with an increase in crime. The crime already exists. I'm fine with locking them up or sending them to rehab ...but not with supplying needles and supervised, "safe" places to get high. I'd rather reserve that level of care and concern for the victims of drug-related crime.

Also from a purely emotional standpoint and with all respect to you, I feel like "reserving care and compassion" for only certain people is a large part of the problem. I have never met an addict who feels rewarded by the chance to use; it is a desperate attempt to feel normal. I hear what you're saying - it's not okay that others' addictions create danger for those of us who don't use. I believe that these safe houses are going to be an important measure to bring safety and peace of mind to people on both sides of the issue.

No Canadian nurse or doctor has ever lost their licence working in a needle exchange or safe site.

I'm really noticing a huge difference between American posters and the rest of the world in this thread

Well, that's that "American exceptionalism" you hear so much about. We're special ... :rolleyes:

Well, that's that "American exceptionalism" you hear so much about. We're special ... :rolleyes:

The failure to acknowledge the concept of ‘for the greater good'?