Chris Christie Hits One Out of the Ballpark

[Sue U]

The commission hits one out of the park and Christie, as spokesman, gets to take credit for it.

yrs,
rubato

The one positive thing Chris Christie has done in the last year of his administration is to make addressing the opioid epidemic a very public priority. (How he proposes to pay for it is another issue, but that's a separate rant.)

[Sue U]

As a general rule, municipal employees performing their jobs fall within the scope of sovereign immunity, so whatever liability there might be is going to be circumscribed by the specific provisions of the state's tort claims act; some provide for heightened liability standards (whether in severity of causally related injury or in showing something like "gross" rather than "ordinary" negligence), some require administrative rather than judicial resolution, etc. Whatever statutory exceptions there may be to the rule of immunity, they are invariably designed to make it more difficult both procedurally and substantively to bring a claim against a public entity actor.

You could have just said, "It's almost impossible for a cop to get busted in that situation unless they cuff the guy and smash him over the head with a tire iron while giving him the antidote."

I thought I did?

[BoSoxGal]

But those are things they wanted to have.

Something that could save an OD'ing addict from dying, not so much.

Sadly, I think this is on the mark for far too many police.

I simply can't imagine being so selfish as to demand more money to engage in a very simple act that might save a life, especially in these times when municipalities are strapped for funds and the opiod epidemic creates so many more costs for those municipalities.

I have very little respect left for the policing community. I'm sure there are some cops who don't support this position, but obviously they are in the minority.

Kind of like those police in California who stood and watched a person drown because rescue attempts are against policy. Where's the humanity?

[Joe Guy]

I thought I did?

Forsooth, thou didst, albeit verbosely...

[Crackpot]

You could have just said, "It's almost impossible for a cop to get busted in that situation unless they cuff the guy and smash him over the head with a tire iron while giving him the antidote."

Isn't that proper procedure per presidential edict tho?

[Econoline]

Ordinarily I would think any administration of drugs goes beyond first aid; and having participated in negotiating a union contract, adding a duty which was not previously part of the scope of duties ordinarily results in an upward pay adjustment. I'm sure this is where the local police unions are coming from.

I simply can't imagine being so selfish as to demand more money to engage in a very simple act that might save a life, especially in these times when municipalities are strapped for funds and the opiod epidemic creates so many more costs for those municipalities.

Under MA law, equipment is a management right and duty changes require collective bargaining. You can see the tension.

I'm not saying I agree they should be paid more, only that I can understand the perspective.

This is an interesting dilemma, both for union-loving liberals who learned to sing "Solidarity Forever" at summer camp but who are inherently suspicious of the police, and for union-bashing, minimum-wage-hating, blue-lives-matter conservatives for whom our brave men in blue can do no wrong. I've been internally debating this question with myself for years. If you support AFSCME, the NEA, and the American Federation of Teachers, do you also support the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Union of Police Associations? How about vice versa?

...contracts cut both ways.

Yeah.

[Joe Guy]

You could have just said, "It's almost impossible for a cop to get busted in that situation unless they cuff the guy and smash him over the head with a tire iron while giving him the antidote."

Isn't that proper procedure per presidential edict tho?

Good point. Cops are now supposed to knock a suspect's head against the squad car when they're helping them to get inside. They should get more compensation for that.

[Sue U]

I support collective bargaining rights and I support unions, including public sector unions; I used to represent several unions earlier in my legal career. But that doesn't mean that every issue a union raises concerning compensation, seniority or workplace rules is a good one, or one worth fighting over. Of course, sometimes issues are raised in contract negotiations just so they can be given away as a goodwill gesture. And sometimes an issue, while not particularly important in itself, becomes a problem solely because it symbolizes or is symptomatic of other problems in the labor-management relationship.

I don't know which if any of these might apply in any given police department, but it seems to me that it is an objective good with a negligible burden to have police carry and administer naloxone in overdose cases. And considering that as a rule police are the most generously compensated of any public sector employees, it is really bad public relations optics to use this issue as the focus of a contract fight, particularly where the nation faces a genuine public health emergency with regard to opioids.

[BoSoxGal]

York County, Maine SO used Narcan to revive a Labrador Retriever - it had gotten into mom's purse sniffing for gummy bears and found and ate a bunch of prescribed oxycodone. Mom was on the way to the veterinarian's office with the dog, who was losing consciousness, but saw a police car, pulled over and asked their help - and they saved her dog's life with a half blast of Narcan nasal spray.

I bet they didn't ask her for a tip.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pioid.html


I'm very pro union, but there is simply no defending this position. Refusing to save lives over salary increases, for something so simple a child could administer it, in light of the epidemic rate of deaths in our communities? Disgusting! Deplorable! I found a 2016 article indicating that the Chief and about 10% of the officers in my city carry Narcan, but the Chief isn't making it mandatory out of concerns about the possibility of a collective bargaining dispute - but he'll make it and the training available to any officer who requests it.

Every day and night I hear the sirens and I know from the local FB scanner page and the paper that a large proportion of those sirens are for ODs. I cannot fathom anyone who has sworn to protect and serve refusing to do just that. Shame on them!

[Big RR]

I support collective bargaining rights and I support unions, including public sector unions; I used to represent several unions earlier in my legal career. But that doesn't mean that every issue a union raises concerning compensation, seniority or workplace rules is a good one, or one worth fighting over. Of course, sometimes issues are raised in contract negotiations just so they can be given away as a goodwill gesture. And sometimes an issue, while not particularly important in itself, becomes a problem solely because it symbolizes or is symptomatic of other problems in the labor-management relationship.

I don't know which if any of these might apply in any given police department, but it seems to me that it is an objective good with a negligible burden to have police carry and administer naloxone in overdose cases. And considering that as a rule police are the most generously compensated of any public sector employees, it is really bad public relations optics to use this issue as the focus of a contract fight, particularly where the nation faces a genuine public health emergency with regard to opioids.

Can't argue with that Sue.

[Crackpot]

How many of these "Negligible burdens" does it fake to be a problem?

You speak as this can be taken on it's own "just this one time". Just like everything else.

[Bicycle Bill]

It makes no difference whether it's in a restaurant, a factory, an office, or a patrol car, if you give someone more duties and responsibilities it's only fair that they get more money for taking on a larger workload.

And this idea that added duties = additional pay rings very hollow with anyone who has worked in private industry in the last 20 or 30 years. I'd say it has worsened (for me personally, at any rate) in the last five years. Anyone in an operation which has been assimilated by a venture capital company has seen that trend up close and very personal.

I did not say it always works this way in real life; I merely said that it would be the fair thing to do

-"BB"-

[Guinevere]

Ordinarily I would think any administration of drugs goes beyond first aid; and having participated in negotiating a union contract, adding a duty which was not previously part of the scope of duties ordinarily results in an upward pay adjustment. I'm sure this is where the local police unions are coming from.

I simply can't imagine being so selfish as to demand more money to engage in a very simple act that might save a life, especially in these times when municipalities are strapped for funds and the opiod epidemic creates so many more costs for those municipalities.

Under MA law, equipment is a management right and duty changes require collective bargaining. You can see the tension.

I'm not saying I agree they should be paid more, only that I can understand the perspective.

This is an interesting dilemma, both for union-loving liberals who learned to sing "Solidarity Forever" at summer camp but who are inherently suspicious of the police, and for union-bashing, minimum-wage-hating, blue-lives-matter conservatives for whom our brave men in blue can do no wrong. I've been internally debating this question with myself for years. If you support AFSCME, the NEA, and the American Federation of Teachers, do you also support the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Union of Police Associations? How about vice versa?

...contracts cut both ways.

Yeah.

To be clear, the vast majority of police departments in Massachusetts cities and towns deploy Narcan (one of the common trade names for Naloxone) to their officers with no additional compensation. Some for compensation as little as the ability to wear a certain kind of hat in the winter while on duty (yes, we surveyed all the Chiefs, so I've seen what was agreed to). I happen to be busily employed on behalf of a town where the officers wanted compensation, but they are a significant minority. Now, the town went ahead and forced them to carry it anyway, which they have been doing, while we litigated the compensation issue. That's still pending, but to their credit, they have not asked for relief from carrying Narcan in the interim. They know its the right thing to do, but they don't want their collective bargaining rights diminished for so doing (once you start whittling away at them, you can establish a "past practice" which is an effective waiver of those rights). I understand their position.

[Burning Petard]

Now that Narcan is in the news again I thought i would revive this thread.

Anybody have actual experience with Narcan? As a good citizen and neighbor [digression. Yesterday I was behind a bumper sticker that said "Human -- kind. Be both" I am trying.] I am thinking about having, providing, carrying, Narcan, now that the FDA says anybody can buy it. BUT. . . the projected retail price is $130 for two doses.

Anybody know what the expected shelf life is? Does it need refrigeration? Any guess as to how long it will be before some non-opiate is the major street drug killing people? Opiates are now 2/3rds of the overdose deaths.

snailgate

[ex-khobar Andy]

I heard an interview about this on NPR today - don't know if BP/SG heard the same. And I had essentially the same question. I've had CPR training and will use it, no problem, if confronted with a situation that needs it. I'd happily carry Narcan now that it's OTC but frankly if it costs $130 a go and has a shelf life in a car (which gets very hot on summer days) of a few months, I probably wouldn't bother after probably having to discard a dose or two. I was relieved to hear that it's relatively innocuous so if someone gets a dose who maybe should not there are few side effects. But while I know enough to check a pulse and breathing enough to administer CPR I don't know how to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose.

[BoSoxGal]

Signs of opiod overdose - shallow breathing, lack of responsiveness or lost consciousness, blue lips etc. as oxygen sats plummet, maybe seizure and vomiting.

It’s a good idea to err on the side of administering the Narcan I would think, as it doesn’t harm someone who didn’t need it. It will not reverse the effects of benzodiazepines or cocaine or alcohol, but it’s still worth administering because opiods might be in the mix and many lethal ODs are from the effects of multiple drug intoxication.

Narcan is free in Canada, to anyone at risk of ODing or who has a loved one at risk. Imagine living in a democracy where people care about one another.

According to the PBS article I found online, dated today, the average cost for two doses of Narcan in the USA is $50. A little better but still out of reach of many folks that would be willing to be Good Samaritans. It should be free here, too - but profits over people is the manifest destiny of America.