Harm reduction must be recognised an essential public health intervention during crises.

The COVID-19 had a substantial impact on the provision of harm reduction services for people who use drugs globally. These front-line public health interventions serve a population that due to stigma, discrimination and criminalisation, faces barriers to accessing health and social services and are particularly vulnerable to public health crises. Despite this, the pandemic has seen many harm reduction services close, reduce operations or have their funding reduced. Simultaneously, around the world, harm reduction services have been forced to adapt, and in doing so have demonstrated resilience, flexibility and innovation. Governments must recognise the unique abilities of harm reduction services, particularly those led by the community, and identify them as essential health services that must be protected and strengthened in times of crisis.

Decolonizing drug policy.

This paper reviews evidence of how drug control has been used to uphold colonial power structures in select countries. It demonstrates the racist and xenophobic impact of drug control policy and proposes a path to move beyond oppressive systems and structures. The 'colonization of drug control' refers to the use of drug control by states in Europe and America to advance and sustain the systematic exploitation of people, land and resources and the racialized hierarchies, which were established under colonial control and continue to dominate today. Globally, Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples are disproportionately targeted for drug law enforcement and face discrimination across the criminal system. These communities face higher arrest, prosecution and incarceration rates for drug offenses than other communities, such as majority populations, despite similar rates of drug use and selling among (and between) different races. Current drug policies have contributed to an increase in drug-related deaths, overdoses and sustained transnational criminal enterprises at the expense of the lives of people who use drugs, their families and greater society. This review provides further evidence of the need to reform the current system. It outlines a three-pillared approach to rebuilding drug policy in a way that supports health, dignity and human rights, consisting of: (1) the decriminalization of drugs and their use; (2) an end to the mass incarceration of people who use drugs; (3) the redirection of funding away from ineffective and punitive drug control and toward health and social programs.

Women and barriers to harm reduction services: a literature review and initial findings from a qualitative study in Barcelona, Spain.

BACKGROUND: There are an estimated 3.2 million women who inject drugs worldwide, constituting 20% of all people who inject drugs. The limited data that are available suggest that women who inject drugs are at greater risk of HIV and viral hepatitis acquisition than men who inject drugs. This increased vulnerability is a product of a range of environmental, social and individual factors affecting women, which also affect their ability to engage in health promoting services such as harm reduction. METHODS: The researchers undertook a narrative literature review examining access to harm reduction services for women who use drugs in Europe and conducted semi-structured focus groups with women who use drugs and harm reduction and prison health workers in Barcelona, Spain. RESULTS: Women who use drugs face multiple barriers to accessing harm reduction services. These include stigma, both in society in general and from health and harm reduction workers in prisons and in the community; gender-based violence and a lack of services that are equipped to address the interaction between drug use and experiences of violence; criminalisation in the form of legal barriers to access, arrest and harassment from law enforcement, and incarceration; and a lack of services focused on the specific needs of women, notably sexual and reproductive health services and childcare. In Barcelona, participants reported experiencing all these barriers, and that their engagement with the Metzineres harm reduction centre had to some extent mitigated them. However, women continued to experience structural barriers to harm reduction service access. CONCLUSIONS: Women and gender non-conforming people who use drugs face unique barriers to accessing harm reduction services. While services such as Metzineres can be life changing and life affirming for its members, it is incumbent on states to act to address the structural barriers to health faced by women who use drugs.

Repeated surveys of people who inject drugs: The exception, not the rule.

HIV surveillance is the continuous, systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of HIV-related data needed for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the HIV response. Some communities are affected by HIV more than others and require more focused responses; one of these communities are people who inject drugs (PWID.) We reviewed HIV surveillance among PWID across all countries. We identified countries with specific repeated surveys among PWID using data submitted to the UNAIDS Global AIDS Monitoring system, supplemented by national reports from countries that do not report to UNAIDS. Countries with four or more surveys since 2011, with at least one since 2017, were sent a brief survey to ask the use and relevance of the collected data for their respective HIV responses and the challenges they foresaw. Thirty-two countries were polled, of which 17 responded. Respondents highlighted the utility of the surveys to measure HIV prevalence, antiretroviral treatment and other service use. Future funding and maintaining capacity to implement surveys are current or coming challenges.

Legal Support for Palliative Care Patients.

CONTEXT: Palliative care patients face legal issues that impact their quality of life. Legal support, embedded in holistic palliative care services, has developed globally over the last decade to address this. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to trace the origins of legal support for palliative care patients, detail models of legal support, and describe achievements and challenges. METHODS: The article draws on years of work in this area and the available literature. RESULTS: Common legal issues include disposing of property and drafting wills, planning for children, dealing with debt and securing social benefits, and addressing discrimination. Diverse approaches to integrating legal support include developing paralegal skills, accessing skilled legal advice, empowering patients and families, and building awareness of rights among health care workers. CONCLUSION: There is robust and growing acceptance of legal support as a key component of holistic palliative care, and many palliative care professionals are identifying and addressing the legal needs they encounter through mediation, guidance on basic rights, or referrals to a lawyer. Addressing legal problems can contribute to peace of mind, well-being, and the health of patients.

Palliative care and human rights in patient care: an Armenia case study.

This paper examines palliative care within the human rights in patient care framework, which clarifies state obligations and addresses the rights of both patients and providers. In the context of palliative care, these rights extend beyond the right to health and include patient rights to freedom from torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, non-discrimination and equality, bodily integrity, privacy and confidentiality, information, and right to a remedy. They also encompass provider rights to decent working conditions, freedom of association, and due process. The paper then looks at a case study of Armenia, acknowledging how the government's commitment to palliative care, combined with awareness raising and advocacy by human rights organizations, created an enabling environment for the realization of human rights in patient care in the context of palliative care.

How Drug Control Policy and Practice Undermine Access to Controlled Medicines.

Drug conventions serve as the cornerstone for domestic drug laws and impose a dual obligation upon states to prevent the misuse of controlled substances while ensuring their adequate availability for medical and scientific purposes. Despite the mandate that these obligations be enforced equally, the dominant paradigm enshrined in the drug conventions is an enforcement-heavy criminal justice response to controlled substances that prohibits and penalizes their misuse. Prioritizing restrictive control is to the detriment of ensuring adequate availability of and access to controlled medicines, thereby violating the rights of people who need them. This paper argues that the drug conventions' prioritization of criminal justice measures-including efforts to prevent non-medical use of controlled substances-undermines access to medicines and infringes upon the right to health and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. While the effects of criminalization under drug policy limit the right to health in multiple ways, we draw on research and documented examples to highlight the impact of drug control and criminalization on access to medicines. The prioritization and protection of human rights-specifically the right to health and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress-are critical to rebalancing drug policy.