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 OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.
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.

Yes, this

Specializes in Critical Care.

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.

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.

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.

Specializes in Private Duty Pediatrics.

Instead of saying "Maternal Care", say "Patient Centered Care". This is what works. This is what empowers the patient to set his own goals and to work toward achieving them.

Using terms that incite gender wars won't help.

I agree with Julius Seizure; the article was well-written.

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.

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.

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

(deleted)

(deleted)

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.

Well, my hope was that my photo would tip readers off that I am a male; but I guess that wasn't the case.

Anyways, I feel like this may be getting misinterpreted. My point was never to derive blame toward men (obviously, I am a male and not the self-loathing type). The "feminine vs. masculine" approach was meant to be a more metaphorical sense. That is to say, 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.

One can see this with conversations revolving around medication-assisted treatment, in which many see this as "enabling" or "trading one addiction for another."

The "feminist approach" is meant to take on a metaphorically maternal role. This type of treatment values compassion and nurture, pacing with the patient in a way that is not meant to push someone into treatment nor, rather, a specific path of treatment since this can often lead to resistance between the patient and the provider. The other consequence, is the hemorrhaging of communication as the relationship may seem too punitive and not foster honesty.

There is an argument to be made about how this approach and hierarchy developed through a social lens, looking for causation in how men may have dominated and shaped medicine; but that was not my intent.

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.

You're correct. I wasn't making an argument on the cause of the epidemic, but how to treat it in a way that fosters better decision-making. I elaborated more on this in a reply to the previous poster.

What universe do you exist ? Real problems demands real solutions not some wishful magical thoughts. Gender wars will not help.

Again, I elaborated on this in reply to another comment. This wasn't a male VS female argument, it was meant to argue the dynamics of a paternal VS. maternal approach.

The author clearly never in his/her life saw a single one of those "poverless, obedient" patients who will do literally whatever it takes to wheedle more "good pills" from a provider, who is the truly powerless person in this equation, facing DEA on one side and HCAPS surveys on another.

This was never meant to discuss the etiology of the epidemic, one in which we likely share a perspective on. It was to compare approaches through a different social lens.

Issaiah1332:

OP, I'm curious how you might reconcile these two ideas. ^

I don't agree with your thesis but I don't think you have proven it, regardless. What you have written is divisive and ultimately unhelpful .

I hate the way we tend to use such a boxed-in definition of "caring" to begin with. There are a LOT of ways to care and to show care/concern. Definitions and generalizations like the ones in your article hurt both men and women. Boys and girls, too. Everyone, really.

Sigh...in an effort to reply to every critique, I've found myself constantly saying to see an above reply I posted. It wasn't a boy and girl thing, it was a social perspective thing. The way in which we approach these patients is analogous to the way we see maternal and paternal care.