Over the past decade, opioids have warranted a significant amount of suspicion from patients and healthcare providers alike. Due to the high rates of dependency development and the difficulty of overcoming addiction, opioids have become notorious for their massive side effects and the threat that they pose to patients. Thus, the core factors in the emergence of the present-day opioid epidemic become apparent since opioids have been prescribed for patients suffering from immense pain, thus, causing them to develop an addiction. However, the specified stance has not always been the prevalent opinion regarding opioids. Delving into the history of U.S. medicine, as well as the process of building healthcare in any other country, one will recognize similar patterns. Since opioids have always represented a polarizing issue with only two approaches, namely, one of a ban and that one of allowing opioids as medications in their entirety developed. The current stance on the subject at hand I complex primarily due to the presence of the socioeconomic and sociopolitical contexts related to the issue at hand (). By considering opioids outside of the political and economic settings, one will recognize the necessity to use the specified medication as the tool for managing constant pain and the method of addressing the related concerns.
The efforts at addressing the issue of an opioid pandemic have been quite numerous, yet the results that they have yielded cannot be described as stellar. Specifically, the papery Guy et al. (2017) disclose the history of the opioid pandemic in the U.S., explaining that with the popularization of opioid drugs and the development of sustainable approaches that are more efficient, one can introduce a massive change into the current landscape of handling the issue of opioids. Moreover, the study shows that the demand for opioids has been growing consistently at an alarming rate (). Therefore, the specified case exemplifies the dangers of strong opioids being administered to a patient intravenously
Another source that addresses the issue of the opioid epidemic in the U.S., the paper by Green et al. (2015), discusses specifically the case of Naloxone in five American states, applying a legal perspective. The study shows that, when left to develop uncontrollably, the issue of opioid dependency becomes a tremendous health issue that affects patients’ quality of life. Namely, the study emphasizes the evident presence of an overdose risk in a patient to whom opioid treatment has been prescribed (Green et al., 2015). The outcomes of the research prove that there is a need to incorporate an improved approach toward managing pain in patients with severe conditions without foisting such adverse outcomes on them and their health. Thus, Green et al. (2015) outline the absolute necessity of shaping the current regulations so that the availability of opioid treatment could be more accessible to patients, yet the adverse outcomes could be minimized by introducing more recent approaches to the therapy. Specifically, third-generation opioids need to be introduced into the current healthcare context, particularly the environment of palliative care. Emphasizing imperfections in the current legal standards, as well as the absence of homogeneity in approaching the issue of the opioid epidemic in the U.S. from a legal and political perspective, the study invites further considerations of the opportunity to focus on the needs of patients requiring palliative care. Specifically, third-generation opioids, which suggest minimal addiction development, must be incorporated into the framework and financed accordingly.
The threat of overdose, which represents the logical development of opioid dependency in patients and leads to unavoidable death, has also been examined quite thoroughly, with the implications of political and economic changes s critical precursors to including the innovative measures into the current framework for tending to the needs of patients in need for palliative care. Namely, the review by Campbell (2020) details that the current discrepancies in providing opioids as a part of palliative care for patients in need of pain management reflect the inequalities observed in specific communities. Particularly, socioeconomic and sociopolitical concerns linked to the lack of access to vital healthcare resources for vulnerable populations, particularly for representatives of ethnic and racial minorities, are described as the major issue in the current landscape of the opioid epidemic. Indeed, without better solutions to pain management than first-generation opioids, therapists resort to prescribing the latter to patients in need of pain management, thus, exacerbating the issue of opioid dependency in the U.S. population (). Therefore, the study proves the need for a drastic change in the current political and legal contexts so that better healthcare options could be financed, thus, providing patients with a greater range of options for pain management and palliative care.
Finally, Shepherd (2021) sheds light on the current conundrum of the opioid pandemic, pointing out the propensity toward federalization as the major effect of the current political stance on the development of healthcare. According to Shepherd (2021), the resulting lack of homogeneity in approaching the problem of the opioid epidemic and the prescription of opioids has defined the increase in the levels of opioid dependency in patients. Therefore, Shepherd’s study encourages the promotion of social and political change by acknowledging the current presence of economic disparities in the U.S. community, the lack of resources and access to healthcare in the target population, and the dents in the current legal standards for administering opioid treatments to patients suffering from immense pain.
In order to understand the problem of the opioid epidemic in the U.S., one will need to consider the very beginning of the problem development. Specifically, by tracing the origin of the issue to the beginning of the 20th century, one will realize that the issue, in fact, has been addressed. Namely, the study by Shepherd (2021) indicates that the specified approach to managing the problem of opioid addiction is, in fact, rooted in the history of the specified medicine development. Thus, to counteract the use of opioids in the current healthcare setting, one will be able to make a difference in the rapidly changing world.
Applying the political and economic lens to the issue at hand, one will realize that although the general discussion associated with opioids typically leads to the assumption that the use of opioids as the healthcare tool for ameliorating pain, the introduction of a pain management strategy that will allow avoiding the use of opioids is virtually impossible. Therefore, in order to minimize the number of cases of patients developing a dependency, healthcare professionals must consider the issue of opioid usage as a part of the treatment with due care and consideration. Although abandoning opioids as the sole method of reducing the negative experiences caused by some health conditions has proven to lead to significant challenges in fighting the rapidly growing development of certain disorders and appears to be extremely harmful, it needs to be accepted as the only one so far.
References
Campbell, N. D. (2020). OD: Naloxone and the politics of overdose. MIT Press.
Green, T. C., Davis, C., Xuan, Z., Walley, A. Y., & Bratberg, J. (2020). Laws mandating coprescription of naloxone and their impact on naloxone prescription in five US states, 2014–2018. American Journal of Public Health, 110(6), 881-887.
Guy Jr, G. P., Zhang, K., Bohm, M. K., Losby, J., Lewis, B., Young, R.,. Murphy, L. B., & Dowell, D. (2017). Vital signs: changes in opioid prescribing in the United States, 2006–2015. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(26), 697-704.
Shepherd, M. E. (2021). The politics of pain: Medicaid expansion, the ACA, and the opioid epidemic. Vanderbilt University Press.