Anonymous wrote:If I were an officer, I wouldn’t want the responsibility of having to administer a drug. If I did it wrong, if the person wa allergic, if the person had used too much of whatever they were od’ing for it to be effective, or whatever else, I’d be blamed for doing something wrong. That could be the end of m6 career. No pension, nothing, and possibly sued.

Cops aren’t doctors. Period.

+1

It’s not a police officers job to save junkies from the consequences of bad decisions.

Although I have no problem with them carrying it to administer to officers or citizens who become accidentally exposed to fentanyl.

maybe they don't want to keep revising people who will OD two days later. There have been OD patients discharged from washington Hospital center, found shooting up in my neighborhood two hours later, still have their hospital ID on....whats the point?

Mayor Bowser Announces New Public Health Plan to Equip MPD Patrol Officers with Naloxone

Friday, January 18, 2019
(Washington, DC) – Today, Mayor Muriel Bowser announced a new public health plan to equip Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) patrol officers with naloxone, a medicine that counteracts the effects of an opioid overdose. Over 50,000 naloxone kits will be purchased using federal funding awarded to the District Department of Health (DC Health). The agency will also continue to provide naloxone kits to community-based organizations operating in the District...

https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-announces-new-public-health-plan-equip-mpd-patrol-officers-naloxone

Anonymous wrote:I read that people can become extremely violent after you administer Narcan. It sends them into immediate withdrawal. I hadn’t known that previously and as a petite woman I wouldn’t want to risk that.

Well hopefully you are not a police officer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw a video where a police leader in one of those places like Ohio was saying he won’t let his officers carry it because they get physically injured (evidently drug addicts aren’t the most respectful and gentle people, especially when they’re overdosing) and he didn’t want his officers exposed to that risk.

He’s an ass. Police are exposed to danger all the time.

Officers risk their lives to protect innocent people and/or for the greater good. And by those measures, sadly, it’s better to let addicts die.

I don’t want people high as a kite flying down the freeway, shooting up in front of kids, robbing places to get a fix, etc... do you?

When you add in the fact that they’re often extremely violent when being brought back, I think it’s reasonable and understandable for officers to not carry it.

Saving someone from an overdose is for the greater good.

I’d much rather a drug addict die than some innocent family that happens to be driving on the same highway.

Just watch some YouTube videos of cops reviving drug addicts on the roads if you don’t believe they’re out there, driving around and choosing to put everyone at risk. It’s disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw a video where a police leader in one of those places like Ohio was saying he won’t let his officers carry it because they get physically injured (evidently drug addicts aren’t the most respectful and gentle people, especially when they’re overdosing) and he didn’t want his officers exposed to that risk.

He’s an ass. Police are exposed to danger all the time.

Officers risk their lives to protect innocent people and/or for the greater good. And by those measures, sadly, it’s better to let addicts die.

I don’t want people high as a kite flying down the freeway, shooting up in front of kids, robbing places to get a fix, etc... do you?

When you add in the fact that they’re often extremely violent when being brought back, I think it’s reasonable and understandable for officers to not carry it.

Saving someone from an overdose is for the greater good.

Not always. Most of them just go back out and continue to use. They're going to die sooner or later. Sometimes sooner is the greater good.

Anonymous wrote:I saw a video where a police leader in one of those places like Ohio was saying he won’t let his officers carry it because they get physically injured (evidently drug addicts aren’t the most respectful and gentle people, especially when they’re overdosing) and he didn’t want his officers exposed to that risk.

I'm an ER nurse.

When you give Narcan to someone who is ODing, they come up fighting frequently. They go from passed out to up and fighting. They're in a lot of pain and they are pissed off. They will fight cops.

They also frequently try to refuse going to the hospital because they are now awake and alert, and you have to restrain them and force them into the back of an ambulance. They have to go the hospital. The half-life of Narcan is shorter than the half life of other opiates and when it wears off, they will continue to overdose unless someone is there to give them more Narcan.

I completely understand why a cop would want to wait for EMS to get there, strap the patient to the EMS stretcher, and then give Narcan. It's hard to fight or refuse transport when you're strapped to a stretcher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw a video where a police leader in one of those places like Ohio was saying he won’t let his officers carry it because they get physically injured (evidently drug addicts aren’t the most respectful and gentle people, especially when they’re overdosing) and he didn’t want his officers exposed to that risk.

He’s an ass. Police are exposed to danger all the time.

Officers risk their lives to protect innocent people and/or for the greater good. And by those measures, sadly, it’s better to let addicts die.

I don’t want people high as a kite flying down the freeway, shooting up in front of kids, robbing places to get a fix, etc... do you?

When you add in the fact that they’re often extremely violent when being brought back, I think it’s reasonable and understandable for officers to not carry it.

Saving someone from an overdose is for the greater good.

There is a Netflix documentary re Huntington, WVA which had the highest opiate overdose rate in the US and there the fire department carries it. The fire chief explained while she believes in using narcan as many times as possible on the same person because each time she believes it’s a chance for them to finally get clean, many other fire officials and police do not share that sentiment and don’t want to carry it. Many addicts don’t care if they overdose several times and use Marc an as a crutch. They know the fire department will bring it and save them so they shot up time and time again. Some even get narcan more than once a day. The first responders are pissed about that, they don’t see Marc an as the answer and think it exacerbates the crisis. Some want a limit on how many times an individual can be given narcan (hard to track), some don’t want any narcan at all and if the user dies they die and maybe some will get the message and stop using. Narcan also is expensive, especially when it’s now used in such high quantities.

I suspect some of these reasons may be DCs reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw a video where a police leader in one of those places like Ohio was saying he won’t let his officers carry it because they get physically injured (evidently drug addicts aren’t the most respectful and gentle people, especially when they’re overdosing) and he didn’t want his officers exposed to that risk.

He’s an ass. Police are exposed to danger all the time.

Officers risk their lives to protect innocent people and/or for the greater good. And by those measures, sadly, it’s better to let addicts die.

I don’t want people high as a kite flying down the freeway, shooting up in front of kids, robbing places to get a fix, etc... do you?

When you add in the fact that they’re often extremely violent when being brought back, I think it’s reasonable and understandable for officers to not carry it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were an officer, I wouldn’t want the responsibility of having to administer a drug. If I did it wrong, if the person wa allergic, if the person had used too much of whatever they were od’ing for it to be effective, or whatever else, I’d be blamed for doing something wrong. That could be the end of m6 career. No pension, nothing, and possibly sued.

Cops aren’t doctors. Period.

It’s completely harmless.

You’re wrong. I’ve administered it and they are violent and wake up swinging their fists. Especially if they were just high and not ODing

So have I. The drug is completely harmless. I never said anything about the human.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were an officer, I wouldn’t want the responsibility of having to administer a drug. If I did it wrong, if the person wa allergic, if the person had used too much of whatever they were od’ing for it to be effective, or whatever else, I’d be blamed for doing something wrong. That could be the end of m6 career. No pension, nothing, and possibly sued.

Cops aren’t doctors. Period.

It’s completely harmless.

You’re wrong. I’ve administered it and they are violent and wake up swinging their fists. Especially if they were just high and not ODing

I read that people can become extremely violent after you administer Narcan. It sends them into immediate withdrawal. I hadn’t known that previously and as a petite woman I wouldn’t want to risk that.

Anonymous wrote:I heard that all/most of the times EMS accompanies police and therefore it is unnecessary to train police to carry/use it since the paramedics are right there.

Also an additional expense to buy it and then train officers. Money they dont have.

In DC ? Are you kidding? If you want the paramedics to be right there, then you should hope to reach the Chevy Chase Rescue Squad. If you want to wait and wait and then be driven to Howard U Hospital because the ambulance driver wants to visit her mom after the call, then call DC Fire.