Closer Look
Opinion: The trouble with forced treatment of substance use disorders
While the overdose crisis seems never-ending, calls to commit people to involuntary treatment are growing louder. Some people see it as protection, a way to clear city neighborhoods of people visibly using drugs. Others think it's a necessary act of compassion to help people unable to help themselves. Then there's the desperate wish — from medical professionals and loved ones alike — to do something, anything to make addiction stop.
Here's the thing: Research shows involuntary treatment doesn't work. "The definition of addiction is compulsively using a substance despite bad things happening to you. And substance use is a powerful coping mechanism for when things are going terribly," addiction medicine physician Sarah Wakeman writes in a STAT First Opinion. "So why would making someone's life worse, making them feel even more beaten down, help someone get well?" Read more about what decades of research tell us does work.
pandemic
During Covid, people of color more likely to die at an earlier age than white people
We've learned over the past three years how Covid-19 has affected people from different racial and ethnic groups, often mirroring socioeconomic status. While the coronavirus continues to be especially severe for older people, a new report looks at younger people whose lives have ended prematurely. Most lives were cut short by Covid, followed by drug overdoses, suicide, heart disease, and liver disease.
The new KFF analysis finds people of color were more likely to die at younger ages than white people, using the pre-pandemic life expectancy of 75 years as a benchmark. All groups saw their premature mortality rate rise, but some lost more years than others: American Indian and Alaska Native (22), Hispanic (19.9), Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (18.8), Black (18.3), Asian (14), and white (12.5). Overall, the U.S. rate was highest among peer nations, including double the rate years lost in the U.K.
health
Ask about sex and gender, researchers recommend
Most health studies and surveys ask people for their sex (a biological definition) or their gender (a social construct) but not both, new research points out. Sometimes they use the two categories interchangeably, which can exclude transgender and nonbinary people and lead not just to imperfect research results but potentially inferior care. It could affect decisions on providing mammograms or prostate cancer screening, for example.
In a new PNAS study, the researchers report 200 people among more than 470,000 individuals in the U.K. Biobank for whom sex and gender were discordant. Most of these individuals had medical records of intersex traits, gender dysphoria, and prescriptions for gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender individuals. The authors offer a simple solution: Ask for both sex and gender. "Health and clinical researchers have a unique opportunity to advance the rigor of scientific research as well as the health and well-being of transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people," they write.
No comments