Post by HumanSanity on Jan 24, 2020 16:00:07 GMT -5
Question: Are needle exchange programs a desirable element of public policy for the purpose of preventing HIV/AIDS and other infections?
The Controversy:
Following the HIV/AIDS outbreak among injection drug users, "needle exchange programs" were implimented by many governments as a harm reduction technique. Given that HIV is transmissable by blood contact and infusion, injection drug users were an at risk population whenever they "share needles" rather than using clean needles.
Much evidence points to the effectiveness of Needle Exchange Programs in preventing further spread of HIV/AIDS. Hurley et al. concluded in 1997 after examining cities with and without Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs) that "[HIV] increased by 5.9% per year in the 52 cities without NEPs, and decreased by 5.8% per year in the 29 cities with NEPs" and stated their results "strongly support the view that NEPs are effective" (link). However, these results are ambiguous especially in the context of other diseases, such as Maternal Hepatitis C according to a study of live births in Scioto County, Ohio (Rossi, et al 2020 link).
Some argued that making needles actively available would increase the frequency of injection drug use writ large. Watters et al. in 1994 analyzing a needle exchange program in San Francisco, CA disagreed with that conclusion, while noting that needle exchange was also perhaps not the essential factor in decreasing incidents of HIV/AIDS (link).
However, concerns regarding needle exchange are mostly rooted in moral arguments according to a survey by Christie et al. in 2019 (link).
How do you feel about needle exchange programs? Are they sufficiently effective at reducing incidence of HIV/AIDS and other infections? Or, are they insufficiently effective to be worth expense? Or, are you persuaded by the moral arguments against needle exchange?
The Controversy:
Following the HIV/AIDS outbreak among injection drug users, "needle exchange programs" were implimented by many governments as a harm reduction technique. Given that HIV is transmissable by blood contact and infusion, injection drug users were an at risk population whenever they "share needles" rather than using clean needles.
Much evidence points to the effectiveness of Needle Exchange Programs in preventing further spread of HIV/AIDS. Hurley et al. concluded in 1997 after examining cities with and without Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs) that "[HIV] increased by 5.9% per year in the 52 cities without NEPs, and decreased by 5.8% per year in the 29 cities with NEPs" and stated their results "strongly support the view that NEPs are effective" (link). However, these results are ambiguous especially in the context of other diseases, such as Maternal Hepatitis C according to a study of live births in Scioto County, Ohio (Rossi, et al 2020 link).
Some argued that making needles actively available would increase the frequency of injection drug use writ large. Watters et al. in 1994 analyzing a needle exchange program in San Francisco, CA disagreed with that conclusion, while noting that needle exchange was also perhaps not the essential factor in decreasing incidents of HIV/AIDS (link).
However, concerns regarding needle exchange are mostly rooted in moral arguments according to a survey by Christie et al. in 2019 (link).
How do you feel about needle exchange programs? Are they sufficiently effective at reducing incidence of HIV/AIDS and other infections? Or, are they insufficiently effective to be worth expense? Or, are you persuaded by the moral arguments against needle exchange?
