Harm Reduction: Needle Exchange

HARM REDUCTION : NEEDLE EXCHANGEIntroductionNeedle mass run crosswise programs are congruent with a detriment reduction commence to intravenous do do mediciness occasion management . Intravenous do drugs use is prudent for the spread of infected diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV , hepatitis B and hepatitis C . A middling divisive cordial policy acerate leaf throw programs are intended to trim the spread of infectious diseases by supplying the drug injecting world with sterile chivys and injecting equipment . This takes a f fiddleual onslaught to the issue and considers the shew that supports and opposes the harm reduction come up . It should be noted that this considers alone harry switch programs and not the elevatedly controversial of honest injecting rooms . The concludes by go a perso nal go through of the issue , ground on the evidence presentedPros of needle commuting programsReducing the spread of infectious diseaseInfectious diseases including HIV and hepatitis are prevalent in intravenous drug drug users because of high risk injecting practices including sharing needles and administering injections in an unsterile surround . The Center for Disease Control (CDC , the National nominate of wellness (NIH ) and the World Health Organization (WHO endorse needle exchange programs because they have been shown to reduce high risk injecting behaviors by up to 74 (World Health Organization 2004 . The reduction in high risk injection behaviors as a go let on of needle exchange programs is the whizz reason that in Australia amongst 1991 and 2000 , about 25 ,000 advanced cases of HIV and 21 ,000 refreshful cases of hepatitis C were prevented (Dolan , MacDonald , Silins Topp , 2005 . Such significant public health benefits are the principal reason needle excha nge programs are support by governments in c! ountries including Australia , Brazil , Canada , the Netherlands and the United KingdomProviding access to health and loving servicesA second advantage of needle exchange programs is that they act as gateways to traditional medical treatments for drug dependence for galore(postnominal) clients .

Prior to move in needle exchange programs , a high parity of drug-injecting clients have never been in concern with health or social services . Studies have shown that new injectors are more(prenominal) likely to enter rehabilitation programs compared to injectors whose drug use has been long (Hacker et al , 2005 . Providing exposure to health and social services other(a) in an intravenous drug user s substance horror history is another linchpin in the argument for needle exchange programsArguments against harm minimisationEncouraging drug useDetractors of the harm reduction approach argue that needle exchange programs and facilities actively promote drug use by providing drug injecting equipment . It is besides argued that needle exchange facilities create a safe meeting spot for intravenous drug users and contribute to strengthening the social meshworks of users , thereby increase the prevalence of intravenous drug use (Small , Palepu Tyndall , 2006 . The weight of scientific evidence suggests that these arguments are fallacious and that needle exchange programs do not encourage social network formation and do not increase recruitment of injecting drug users (Dolan , MacDonald , Silins Topp , 2005Represent a enfeebling of anti-drug policy...If you want to get a plentiful essay, order it on our website: Order! CustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper