[Compulsory Hospitalisation of Patients Suffering From Severe Drug or Alcohol Addiction.]
[Compulsory hospitalisation of patients suffering from severe drug or alcohol addiction.]
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2013; 55(4): 269-277
Höppener PE, Godschalx-Dekker JA, van de Wetering BJ
summary BACKGROUND: Psychiatrists treating patients with drug and alcohol addiction currently consider these afflicions to be mental disorders. If patients are so mentally disturbed that they are a danger to themselves or others, then compulsory hospitalisation seems to be an acceptable treatment option. However, it would seem that at present this solution is not normal practice in addiction care. AIM: To describe the indications for compulsory hospitalisation when mental disorders associated with addiction and withdrawal cause risks and dangers. METHOD: Discussion of the indications for compulsory enforced hospitalisation supported by literature. RESULTS: Compulsory hospitalisation is based on the acceptance of the principle that addiction and substance abuse are mental disorders. Indications for emergency hospitalisation include intoxications, acute withdrawal symptoms and other disorders associated with substance use. Indications for longer-term measures are (self)-protection, societal isolation and the need to protect other people from danger. Factors influencing the decision-making process regarding emergency hospitalisation are motivation and treatment perspectives, mental incompetence, contraindications and conflicts between criminal law and patients’ rights. RESULTS: Compulsory hospitalisation deserves serious consideration as the ultimate step in treatment of intoxication, drug and alcohol dependence and withdrawal symptoms. In addition, emergency hospitalisation can be a way of averting danger, facilitating diagnosis and motivating abstinence or at least a reduction in substance use. HubMed – addiction
Cannabis intoxication inhibits avoidance action tendencies: a field study in the Amsterdam coffee shops.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013 Apr 18;
Cousijn J, Snoek RW, Wiers RW
RATIONALE: Experimental laboratory studies suggest that the approach bias (relatively fast approach responses) toward substance-related materials plays an important role in problematic substance use. How this bias is moderated by intention to use versus recent use remains unknown. Moreover, the relationship between approach bias and other motivational processes (satiation and craving) and executive functioning remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the cannabis approach bias before and after cannabis use in real-life setting (Amsterdam coffee shops) and to assess the relationship between approach bias, craving, satiation, cannabis use, and response inhibition. METHODS: Cannabis, tobacco, and neutral approach and avoidance action tendencies were measured with the Approach Avoidance Task and compared between 42 heavy cannabis users with the intention to use and 45 heavy cannabis users shortly after cannabis use. The classical Stroop was used to measure response inhibition. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate relationships between approach bias, satiation, craving, cannabis use, and response inhibition. RESULTS: In contrast to the hypotheses, heavy cannabis users with the intention to use did not show a cannabis approach bias, whereas intoxicated cannabis users did show an approach bias regardless of image category. This could be attributed to a general slowing of avoidance action tendencies. Moreover, craving was negatively associated with the approach bias, and no relationships were observed between the cannabis approach bias, satiation, prior cannabis use, and response inhibition. CONCLUSION: Cannabis intoxication in a real-life setting inhibited general avoidance. Expression of the cannabis approach bias appeared not to be modulated by satiation or response inhibition. HubMed – addiction
Addiction: Turning down drug-seeking.
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Apr 18;
Jones R
Error and Bias in the Evaluation of Prescription Opioid Misuse: Should the FDA Regulate Clinical Assessment Tools?
Pain Med. 2013 Apr 17;
Meltzer EC, Hall WD, Fins JJ
BACKGROUND: Clinicians who prescribe chronic opioid therapy are concerned about identifying patients who are at-risk for misusing, abusing, or diverting (i.e. selling) their pain medications. Experts have specifically recommended using clinical assessment tools as part of a comprehensive plan for mitigating opioid-related risks. These tools are typically short, standardized questionnaires that screen for the presence or absence of putatively aberrant medication-related behaviors thought to be predictive of addiction. Interestingly, these tools remain wholly unregulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or other authorities. OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews how these instruments are used and the normative assumptions informing their use, fully appreciating that these screening tools do not have the power to diagnose illness or an addiction disorder. CONCLUSION: We conclude that these clinical assessment tools should be regulated because, as we will argue, any screening tool that can assess patients for the potential for opioid-related aberrant behaviors are powerful instruments that merit additional scrutiny and oversight-perhaps by the FDA and other regulatory agencies. HubMed – addiction