Needle Exchange Program

Arguments on

Needle Exchange Program

Introduction

1
 Needle Exchange Program

Recently the drug use has increased in number leading to deadly and infectious diseases. This
kind of fear is prevailing in the society, but no accurate action is taken by the United States
government to fund the Needle exchange program.

The needle exchange program is designed to cater to the problem of rising drug addicts. People
misuse and abuse drugs, which lead to strong addiction. The abused drugs like cocaine, heroin,
which changes thinking ability, actions, and feelings. Therefore, the Needle exchange programs
come into action with goals to reduce the harm to drug users and public. They provide sterile
needles and to remove contaminated syringes from the circulation in the community. (Vlahaov,
1998). The essay will comprise of the counter arguments for and against the effectiveness of the
Needle Exchange Program and how it is benefitting the society.

The argument raised that implementing the needle exchange program does not help the drug
users, but instead encourage them to use more drugs. In fact, Needle exchange programs are
ineffective and do not reduce the HIV or other infectious diseases, therefore such programs
should be abolished.

On the other hand, the needle exchange program provides the greatest benefit, which is the
reduction spread of the deadly known diseases like HIV/AIDS. As Vlahov (1998) says Equally
important, needle exchanges are there to establish the contact which is otherwise hard to reach
populations to deliver the health services like HIV testing, as well as referrals to treatment for
drug abuse.. Numerous studies were conducted to show the effectiveness of the Needle
exchange programs implemented in the society. The funding for the program was collected from
different places, including Amsterdam, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
The results of funding the NEP varied greatly, but turned out to be more positive.

Positive Outcomes

The studies conducted individually in each country and funded by the United States government,
for many reasons, support in order to incorporate the Needle Exchange programs into society.
Firstly, the NEP helps the society to receive benefits, including the prevention of the spread of
diseases known as HIV/AIDS. Needle exchange program ultimately focuses on the Injection
Drug users, which are commonly known to spread the HIV through sharing of unhygienic

2
 Needle Exchange Program

needles used to inject drugs into the bloodstream. The drug injection is becoming a prominent
problem in the society as it is a fast and cheap way of obtaining high levels that they wish.
Therefore, Needle exchange programs helps in getting rid of such disease. According to the
CDC, there are 33.4 million people suffering from AIDS, which shows an astounding figure and
a hazard to the society. And nearly around 2 million people die of the AIDS. Thus, in order to
combat the HIV/AIDS diseases, needle exchange programs are significant. This program help
way for the Injection drug use to safely dispose of the needles and obtain new syringes at
minimal cost. The Needle exchange program plays a significant role in fighting the deadly
diseases and benefits the drug users and its society. The needle exchange program also believes
in exchange of services like education concerning risk behaviors and referral to drug treatment
programs, it is a step towards the elimination of all infection and distribution of contraceptive
measures for the intercourse. In March 2000, a surgeon revealed a report based on the scientific
research of the effect of needle exchange program, which was effective in reducing the
transmission of HIV if they were part of a comprehensive HIV prevention stage. (Chiavon, n.d).
The success and effectiveness of Needle exchange program involves the measurement of the
number of needles exchanged, the cleanliness of the needles, the prevalence of HIV, and other
related events of the needle-borne diseases. Further, the Needle exchange program observes and
helps in maintaining the changes in the risk behaviors of needle exchange participant, giving
instructions about safe injection techniques and offer drug treatments if they want them. The
Needle exchange program provides minimal healthcare as well. Thus, an observed pattern of
favorable outcome will reflect the health of society and achieve the objective of the program. To
support this, in 1967 in Amsterdam, 60% of the Needle exchange participants came back for the
follow-up appointments and classes on safe injecting behaviors. (Cichocki, 2007).

However, the countries supporting the Needle exchange programs require the funds from the
United States. The United States, on the other hand, do not want to support the socialized
programs. Therefore, all the reports were summarized and studies concluded that Needle
exchange program could reduce the spread of HIV. However, the ratio of drug use increased in
United States, which costed the health of the society, lost productivity and increased number of
accidents and crimes costing more than $50 billion a year. The problems are that the government

3
 Needle Exchange Program

spent too much money on health care for the infected rather than spending on to prevent the
disease in the first place.

Negative Outcomes

Researchers argue that Needle exchange program might have a positive objective and outcomes.
However, there is a higher possibility of negative results from the Needle exchange program,
which demands attention. The needle exchange program is not focusing on the improperly
discarded-used needles, which raise further disease and infections. The needle exchange program
is emphasizing on safe use of needles and how to clean which is giving a rise in the illegal drug
use and promoting drug use. In addition, the needle exchange lowers the perception of risk of
injection drug use and increase the number of drug users and other forms of illegal drug use.
However, the argument arises that the role of needle exchange program is not encouraging the
drug use; the truth is that people will continue to use drugs with or without clean needles. Until
the drugs are hard to attain, the drug users will find ways to achieve it and needle exchange
program is doing the opposite. In 2000, the U.S General surgeon Dr. David Satcher stated that
after reviewing the research, the senior scientist of the department and I agree that the Needle
exchange program is an effective public health intervention that reduced the transmission of HIV
and discourages the use of illegal drugs.

To further support the effectiveness, the Needle exchange program provides information on
detoxification programs and treatments. Further studies have showed that three times more users
than non-users seek to detoxification treatment to end the drug use. A comparative study
conducted in 99 cities in 2003, showed that cities incorporating Needle exchange program, HIV
prevalence dropped down by 18.6 %, while those who failed to implement the program increase
the HIV exposure by 8.1%. (Cichocki, 2007).

People that take into account the Needle exchange program are more likely not to contract the
HIV/AIDS and have more focus on detoxification programs, treatment and are generally healthy.
The problem started rising when Government support and funding restricted. The government
funded to provide more healthcare, condoms, and drug counselors. The needle exchange program
is beneficial in many areas and benefitted the society as a whole; economically, financially and

4
 Needle Exchange Program

morally. Consequently, the United States was more in favor of not to fund the needle Exchange
program based on the study conducted in Vancouver, Canada. The study concluded that Needle
exchange programs are ineffective at reducing the number of HIV/AIDS. The major reason
behind was that the outbreaks of HIV were still high considering the time of the needle exchange
program facility in that area. U.S. considered this reason as a negative effect, but the truth was
that decision made by U.S not to fund, based on a study conducted in the different country. The
geographic location of the NEP facility affects the amount of HIV break out in the area and
effectiveness of NEP. As a result, U.S decision of not to fund such programs are not on a solid
platform. Supported by Dr. Williams and Dr. Metzger claims that geography is significantly
important in understanding the epidemiology of HIV and prevalence.

Conclusion

Therefore, conclusions on the facts presented and arguments discussed that pros of Needle
exchange programs have outweighed the cons of Needle exchange programs. The program has
proved to be a beneficial and valuable aspect of the societys health care. In regards to the
funding by the United States for needle exchange program, they should not base their decision on
whether to fund or not based on a study conducted in the different country. The United States
should conduct their own national study taking into account all variables like race and location,
to base their decision on whether to fund Needle exchange programs or not.

References:

Vlahov, David and Benjamin Junge., (1998) The Role of Needle Exchange Programs In HIV
Prevention Public Health Reports. 113(1): 75-79. Print

Williams, Chyvetter T., and David S. Metzger., (2010) Race and Distance Effects on Regular
Syringe Exchange Program Use and Injection Risks: A Geobehavioral Analysis. American
Journal of Public Health. 100(6): 1068-073. Print

5
 Needle Exchange Program

National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Panel on Needle Exchange and
Bleach Distribution Programs; Normand J, Vlahov D, Moses LE, editors. Preventing HIV
Transmission: The Role of Sterile Needles and Bleach. Washington (DC): National Academies
Press (US); 1995.

Mark Cichocki, R.N., (2007). Needle Exchange Programs Do They Help Prevent HIV infection?

Marc Robert Chiavon., (n.d). Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs): Do NEPs successfully reduce
the transmission of intravenous diseases in United States?

Harm Reduction | Public Health Approach to Drug Use | Drug Policy Alliance.
(2017). Drugpolicy.org. Retrieved 12 April 2017, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/harm-
reduction