Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
smokeybandit wrote:What percentage of flights ever have to deal with a drug overdose?
enilria wrote:smokeybandit wrote:What percentage of flights ever have to deal with a drug overdose?
Seems like a waste of 1000 or 2000 doses. And I assume it expires pretty quick.
enilria wrote:smokeybandit wrote:What percentage of flights ever have to deal with a drug overdose?
Seems like a waste of 1000 or 2000 doses. And I assume it expires pretty quick.
ABpositive wrote:enilria wrote:smokeybandit wrote:What percentage of flights ever have to deal with a drug overdose?
Seems like a waste of 1000 or 2000 doses. And I assume it expires pretty quick.
Tell that to those who benefit from it. There used to be the same attitude to Epipens but the widespread adoption has actually brought down its costs.
WeatherPilot wrote:If kept at the right temperature you could probably get almost two years shelf life.
jayunited wrote:WeatherPilot wrote:If kept at the right temperature you could probably get almost two years shelf life.
According to the FDA naloxone should be stored between 59 degrees F and 86 degrees F, however the nasal spray has a lower max recommended temperature of only 77 degrees F. As long as the PC air is on or the aircrafts air conditioning is on that shouldn't be a problem. But what happens when an aircraft is at a hangar powered off outside with no PC air depending on the time of year and the location of the aircraft temperatures on that empty aircraft can rise or fall below the recommended holding temp which will effect the shelf life of narcan.
I completely understand why airlines are moving in the direction of carrying narcan but the truth is they also are going to waist a lot of narcan by throwing it out.
wjcandee wrote:Say everything you want about how this stuff is going to be "wasted", or "expensive". Fact is, the total cost of the drug, which would be in the hundreds of thousands, absolutely pales in comparison to what it would cost to defend a lawsuit claiming that it was negligent of DL not to have it onboard.
wjcandee wrote:Say everything you want about how this stuff is going to be "wasted", or "expensive". Fact is, the total cost of the drug, which would be in the hundreds of thousands, absolutely pales in comparison to what it would cost to defend a lawsuit claiming that it was negligent of DL not to have it onboard.
zionite wrote:'murica!!!
It's simply amazing how its easy to sue someone in US. US is the only country where I've seen advertisements put up by law firms...
Someone takes an overdose of opium, takes a DL flight, falls sick and dies onboard and the dead (or his survivor) sues the airline for being negligent. Can the other passengers sue the dead or his survivor for the delay caused (if any) due to diversion?
zionite wrote:wjcandee wrote:Say everything you want about how this stuff is going to be "wasted", or "expensive". Fact is, the total cost of the drug, which would be in the hundreds of thousands, absolutely pales in comparison to what it would cost to defend a lawsuit claiming that it was negligent of DL not to have it onboard.
'murica!!!
It's simply amazing how its easy to sue someone in US. US is the only country where I've seen advertisements put up by law firms...
Someone takes an overdose of opium, takes a DL flight, falls sick and dies onboard and the dead (or his survivor) sues the airline for being negligent. Can the other passengers sue the dead or his survivor for the delay caused (if any) due to diversion?
wjcandee wrote:How about for when your Grandpa has back surgery and is prescribed Oxycontin for the pain. He's forgetful, so he takes 5 of them instead of 1, and goes into a CNS-depressed state on the plane from Miami to see you. Don't you want there to be something on the plane to help him?
ryan78 wrote:zionite wrote:'murica!!!
It's simply amazing how its easy to sue someone in US. US is the only country where I've seen advertisements put up by law firms...
Someone takes an overdose of opium, takes a DL flight, falls sick and dies onboard and the dead (or his survivor) sues the airline for being negligent. Can the other passengers sue the dead or his survivor for the delay caused (if any) due to diversion?
There was an incident a few years ago on the CSX railway in Georgia where a film crew was filming for a movie on an active railway bridge. The producers had asked CSX if they could close the track down for the shoot however CSX denied their request and they went ahead and starting filming anyway without permission. A train rolled through, not everyone could get off the bridge in time and a woman was killed. CSX ended up having to pay over $5 million in damages to the deceased even though the film crew was trespassing on the tracks. Another train had passed through the area earlier and reported people near the tracks however it was deemed that the CSX train didn't "slow down enough" after being warned hours earlier... The American legal system really is something else...
To me this sounds like a huge waste of time and money. Every aircraft has 1 medical kit for every 100 pax (at least in my company). In a fleet of over 900 aircraft that's a lot of manpower and money to change all those med kits. It would be cheaper to bury some fine print in the ticket purchasing contract saying they can't get sued or something along those lines. It's the same principal of having safe injection sites, it literally makes no sense at all to me.
ABpositive wrote:enilria wrote:smokeybandit wrote:What percentage of flights ever have to deal with a drug overdose?
Seems like a waste of 1000 or 2000 doses. And I assume it expires pretty quick.
Tell that to those who benefit from it. There used to be the same attitude to Epipens but the widespread adoption has actually brought down its costs.
ltbewr wrote:Many police departments in the USA have Narcan in their police cars or on their person. Just in my state, New Jersey, well over 200 persons have been saved from its use in the last several years. Police are most likely first on the scene of a person who may need Narcan and there won't be enough time to get the person to a hospital if undergoing an overdose.
Unlike the police, while it isn't the legal obligation of airlines to save lives if certain health conditions occur with a passenger or crew member, considering that it may take too long and very expensive to divert to get a person undergoing an overdose to get immediate medical attention, the costs of having Narcan available may be worth it.
zionite wrote:wjcandee wrote:Say everything you want about how this stuff is going to be "wasted", or "expensive". Fact is, the total cost of the drug, which would be in the hundreds of thousands, absolutely pales in comparison to what it would cost to defend a lawsuit claiming that it was negligent of DL not to have it onboard.
'murica!!!
It's simply amazing how its easy to sue someone in US. US is the only country where I've seen advertisements put up by law firms...
Someone takes an overdose of opium, takes a DL flight, falls sick and dies onboard and the dead (or his survivor) sues the airline for being negligent. Can the other passengers sue the dead or his survivor for the delay caused (if any) due to diversion?
wjcandee wrote:Say everything you want about how this stuff is going to be "wasted", or "expensive". Fact is, the total cost of the drug, which would be in the hundreds of thousands, absolutely pales in comparison to what it would cost to defend a lawsuit claiming that it was negligent of DL not to have it onboard.
readytotaxi wrote:So Delta is the drug addicts airline of choice?
smokeybandit wrote:ltbewr wrote:Many police departments in the USA have Narcan in their police cars or on their person. Just in my state, New Jersey, well over 200 persons have been saved from its use in the last several years. Police are most likely first on the scene of a person who may need Narcan and there won't be enough time to get the person to a hospital if undergoing an overdose.
Unlike the police, while it isn't the legal obligation of airlines to save lives if certain health conditions occur with a passenger or crew member, considering that it may take too long and very expensive to divert to get a person undergoing an overdose to get immediate medical attention, the costs of having Narcan available may be worth it.
Narcan doesn't stop the overdose, it just temporarily halts it. What happens when someone is given 2-3 doses but still dies before the plane can medically divert? This obviously isn't a case where most people are within 30 minutes of a hospital
ABpositive wrote:enilria wrote:smokeybandit wrote:What percentage of flights ever have to deal with a drug overdose?
Seems like a waste of 1000 or 2000 doses. And I assume it expires pretty quick.
Tell that to those who benefit from it. There used to be the same attitude to Epipens but the widespread adoption has actually brought down its costs.
ltbewr wrote:Unlike the police, while it isn't the legal obligation of airlines to save lives if certain health conditions occur with a passenger or crew member, considering that it may take too long and very expensive to divert to get a person undergoing an overdose to get immediate medical attention, the costs of having Narcan available may be worth it.
TTailedTiger wrote:
Sued over something the person did to themselves? Something known to be very dangerous and illegal at that. What jury in their right mind would award any damages? The airline is not responsible for saving you from your own destruction. And the flight attendants shouldn't have to put themselves at risk to being exposed to contaminated needles or body fluids. I have no sympathy for someone who messes with that stuff. Take some responsibility for your actions.
TTailedTiger wrote:Keith2004 wrote:SpoonNZ wrote:Let’s do some maths. Narcan cost about $150, and there’s about 150 seats on a plane. So a dollar per seat. But that Narcan should be good for a year or two - conservatively 1000 flights. So it’s about a tenth of a cent increase you’ll see in your ticket price.
Say you average a flight every week for a 40 year career. 2000 flights. A grand total of two dollars in your whole life.
If we’re picking people to pitch overboard I say let’s start with pricks like you that aren’t willing to give up a few cents to possibly save several lives.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Some people here can really lack basic compassion some times....
The cost per passenger is almost negligible
Should we say F**** the overweight person that has a heart attack, because they made a choice to eat a poor diet?
That is how "Too bad they made a choice to be an addict, I don't wanna paymore on my ticket to have something that may save their life" sounds
Except a heart attack has a good chance (if they survive) of scaring that overweight person into changing their habits. And a heart attack can happen to anyone. Slim or fat. A heroin addict giving it up is next to unheard of. And why do you want to expose the flight attendants to their needles and body fluids? If these people knew that there was no bringing them back from an overdose then maybe they would think twice before taking that first hit that gets them addicted.
smokeybandit wrote:SpoonNZ wrote:smokeybandit wrote:The big issue people have is why is Narcan "free" but so many other life saving medications aren't?
I can afford another few bucks across my lifetime. Anything that cost effective that can practically save several lives each year they should carry too.
I noticed in NYC recently a lot of advertising advising users to keep some Narcan around. A good start, but until it becomes as commonplace as people with allergies carrying epipens, why not spend a few bucks to do this?
Someone having an allergic reaction can't rely on a first responder to have an epipen. Will airlines carry those, too?
johns624 wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:
Sued over something the person did to themselves? Something known to be very dangerous and illegal at that. What jury in their right mind would award any damages? The airline is not responsible for saving you from your own destruction. And the flight attendants shouldn't have to put themselves at risk to being exposed to contaminated needles or body fluids. I have no sympathy for someone who messes with that stuff. Take some responsibility for your actions.
I agree, you can't always save people from themselves. I had two major surgeries last year--I had both my shoulders replaced (reverse). They gave me a total of 30 Percocets and 90 Tramadols. 26 of the first and 80+ of the second were disposed of. People become addicts because they want to. They have other problems in their lives and instead of confronting them, they feel sorry for themselves and give up. My mother's family is orginally from the area (southern Ohio) where the main problem is. They got out 70 years ago and made a life for themselves because the mines were closing up back then. I'll get flamed but I really don't care. Narcan has saved many lives more than one time. What does that tell you? If you don't change after a near-death experience, nothing can change you. There's a big difference between having an allergic reaction (nonvoluntary) to something vs having an OP (voluntary).
WeatherPilot wrote:I hope they plan to have more than one dose of Narcan. Depending on the strength of the opiod used it can take several doses to reverse the affect of the opiod the passenger took. One dose of Narcan only lasts about 30 minutes.
johns624 wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:Sued over something the person did to themselves? Something known to be very dangerous and illegal at that. What jury in their right mind would award any damages? The airline is not responsible for saving you from your own destruction. And the flight attendants shouldn't have to put themselves at risk to being exposed to contaminated needles or body fluids. I have no sympathy for someone who messes with that stuff. Take some responsibility for your actions.
I agree, you can't always save people from themselves. I had two major surgeries last year--I had both my shoulders replaced (reverse). They gave me a total of 30 Percocets and 90 Tramadols. 26 of the first and 80+ of the second were disposed of. People become addicts because they want to. They have other problems in their lives and instead of confronting them, they feel sorry for themselves and give up. My mother's family is orginally from the area (southern Ohio) where the main problem is. They got out 70 years ago and made a life for themselves because the mines were closing up back then. I'll get flamed but I really don't care. Narcan has saved many lives more than one time. What does that tell you? If you don't change after a near-death experience, nothing can change you. There's a big difference between having an allergic reaction (nonvoluntary) to something vs having an OP (voluntary).
TTailedTiger wrote:Keith2004 wrote:SpoonNZ wrote:Let’s do some maths. Narcan cost about $150, and there’s about 150 seats on a plane. So a dollar per seat. But that Narcan should be good for a year or two - conservatively 1000 flights. So it’s about a tenth of a cent increase you’ll see in your ticket price.
Say you average a flight every week for a 40 year career. 2000 flights. A grand total of two dollars in your whole life.
If we’re picking people to pitch overboard I say let’s start with pricks like you that aren’t willing to give up a few cents to possibly save several lives.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Some people here can really lack basic compassion some times....
The cost per passenger is almost negligible
Should we say F**** the overweight person that has a heart attack, because they made a choice to eat a poor diet?
That is how "Too bad they made a choice to be an addict, I don't wanna paymore on my ticket to have something that may save their life" sounds
Except a heart attack has a good chance (if they survive) of scaring that overweight person into changing their habits. And a heart attack can happen to anyone. Slim or fat. A heroin addict giving it up is next to unheard of. And why do you want to expose the flight attendants to their needles and body fluids? If these people knew that there was no bringing them back from an overdose then maybe they would think twice before taking that first hit that gets them addicted.
ethernal wrote:Wrong. I know cops who have revived the same person more than once. If a near-death experience doesn't wake you up, nothing will. You can't tell me that a certain region of the country has a much higher rate of addictive people than other areas. It's just like the majority of extremely obese people who use the "thyroid problem" as an excuse that only a minority of them have.
but your attitude is a major part of the problem and not the solution. Asking people to "buck up" and stop choosing addiction is not a useful or scientifically substantiated position.
johns624 wrote:ethernal wrote:Wrong. I know cops who have revived the same person more than once. If a near-death experience doesn't wake you up, nothing will. You can't tell me that a certain region of the country has a much higher rate of addictive people than other areas. It's just like the majority of extremely obese people who use the "thyroid problem" as an excuse that only a minority of them have.
but your attitude is a major part of the problem and not the solution. Asking people to "buck up" and stop choosing addiction is not a useful or scientifically substantiated position.
RobertS975 wrote:I'm sure that they would still need the diversion. The person would still need trained medical care.Second, if one emergency diversion a year is avoided by having naloxone on board, the costs were be offset considerably. And then there is the argument that it is simply the right thing to do.
TTailedTiger wrote:What a world. Smoking (I don't condone it either) in the lav will get you arrested and a fine of thousands of dollars. But stick a needle with heroin in your arm and you are a victim of society.
johns624 wrote:People become addicts because they want to.
n0ct wrote:Many seem to think that Narcan is only for "addicts". There are many people who take their pain medications as directed by their doctor who end up needing narcan in an emergency, often due to an illness that affects their respiration, which is already depressed by the narcotic. Even though they are taking the medication as directed, the depression of their respiration leads to death. This is further exacerbated by the reduced atmospheric pressure in a plane. Then, there is the other issue, children getting into a parent or grandparent's medications and accidentally taking an adult dose for a person who is opioid tolerant which is a lethal dose for an opioid naive child.
TTailedTiger wrote:johns624 wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:
Sued over something the person did to themselves? Something known to be very dangerous and illegal at that. What jury in their right mind would award any damages? The airline is not responsible for saving you from your own destruction. And the flight attendants shouldn't have to put themselves at risk to being exposed to contaminated needles or body fluids. I have no sympathy for someone who messes with that stuff. Take some responsibility for your actions.
I agree, you can't always save people from themselves. I had two major surgeries last year--I had both my shoulders replaced (reverse). They gave me a total of 30 Percocets and 90 Tramadols. 26 of the first and 80+ of the second were disposed of. People become addicts because they want to. They have other problems in their lives and instead of confronting them, they feel sorry for themselves and give up. My mother's family is orginally from the area (southern Ohio) where the main problem is. They got out 70 years ago and made a life for themselves because the mines were closing up back then. I'll get flamed but I really don't care. Narcan has saved many lives more than one time. What does that tell you? If you don't change after a near-death experience, nothing can change you. There's a big difference between having an allergic reaction (nonvoluntary) to something vs having an OP (voluntary).
Agreed. I was given a prescription for heavy pain meds after having my four wisdom teeth removed. I didn't fill them. Regular over the counter pain relievers worked just fine.