Google says Narcan costs $140. I hope they have it locked up!

Delta Air Lines will begin carrying naloxone, a medication that can reverse a narcotic overdose, on flights while the country grapples with its opioid crisis. The Atlanta-based airline said it has had plans since the beginning of the year to add naloxone to its emergency medical kits, and will make the overdose-reversal drug available on all its planes starting this fall.
The naloxone medication is often sold under the brand name Narcan.

In a recent incident, a Delta passenger flying aboard Flight 2531 from Boston to Los Angeles claimed that a man died from an overdose on her flight. In a tweet, Lynne Lyman said the flight attendants, a doctor and passengers did everything they could to save his life, despite not having naloxone on board.

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/new ... yptr=yahoo

What percentage of flights ever have to deal with a drug overdose?

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.

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.

In my 2 decades of commercial flying, I think that I've only had a passenger overdose maybe twice at most, and not once in recent years. In fact, in my nearly 45 years on this planet, I don't think that I've ever even witnessed such an occurrence as a passenger. Seems like a waste of money, though it's always better to be safe than sorry. Does anyone have any numbers for how often this occurs on commercial flights?

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.

If kept at the right temperature you could probably get almost two years shelf life.

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.

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.

Well, I'm sure the drug maker is happy.

According to this article the same thing happened on a Delta flight in October, 2018, except the plane landed in time for paramedics to revive the passenger/victim:

https://www.emsworld.com/article/122179 ... s-med-kits

According to the article, Delta was planning to add narcan to it's first aid kits last year. Maybe it will happen for real now.

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.

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.

At the airline I worked out the med lit
Came off when the plane was parked. There’s other medicine in there that can freeze in the winter.

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.

Bingo!
I wouldn't be surprised to see many places open to the public (stadiums, arenas, walmart, etc.) start stocking this stuff like they brought in AEDs years ago. Sure it's "nice" to save somebody's life but this is more about avoiding liability.

Especially since an overdose has occurred on a Delta flight. In the future, if it happens, the family of the decedent will file a lawsuit with a statement like, "Defendant knew or should have known that there was a risk of an overdose onboard their aircraft."

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?

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.

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?

Do people who overdose on drugs don’t realize it’s a bad idea to subsequently stay in a pressured metal tube at altitude for a longer duration of time?

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?

Desire: Yes
Requirement: No

What should I do: Get a ticket and fly there myself to see him instead of him with his back surgery and pain to travel.

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.

Well there’s prescription drugs they have to be replaced every x amount of days already. So the next time they are replaced they will add one more drug. Really a non issue. But you also don’t really know why you are towing about.

So Delta is the drug addicts airline of choice?

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.

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.

Epipens haven't had that attitude in my lifetime and I turn 50 soon.

I've seen people who needed Epipens. I know people who carry them.

Overdose is self inflicted. Airlines are not flying ambulances. They need to know CPR of course, but in my opinion, it takes quite a bit of training to know how to administer this. I would think a conflict with a passenger training class has far more value.

Lightsaber

Very recently American has started stocking Narcan in the Inflight Medical Kit. Just this year, before we started carrying Narcan, I was working when we had a pax overdose. She was still unresponsive after we diverted and the EMTs took her.

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

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?

It is easy to sue but there's nothing that says they're going to win. In fact, most suits in the U.S. courts are by businesses suing other businesses, not consumer suits against businesses.

Many of the posts here are unempathetic screeds about cost, not the virtue (and effectiveness) of Narcan in saving lives. The same kinds of people may complain about a delay when aircraft divert for a medical. Insufferable.

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.

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.

readytotaxi wrote:

So Delta is the drug addicts airline of choice?

Delta is not my airline of choice but if I was an opiate addict it probably would be.

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

It may not work every time, but if it saves some lives it is worth it.
People die all the time on planes even after attempts are made to save their lives, some times items in the kits work, some times they don't.

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.

Epi-Pens were actually reasonable in price I used to get them free until Senator Joe Manchin's daughter Heather Bresch the CEO of Mylan raised the price of them 500% in a 7 year period.

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.

The police (unfortunately) have no such legal obligation as has been ruled in a number of court cases. There is absolutely zero legal obligation for the police to come or render aid. Seems counter-intuitive that a private company seems to have more legal obligations on protecting lives than a public body who's sole purpose is to protect the public, but that's the reality of it.

As far as the rest of you, the disgust you express for the lives of your fellow humans is absolutely despicable. I won't make a judgment about whether or not Delta should carry narcan, but everyone here demonizing addicts are part of the problem. Very few people want to become addicted to opioids. There are a number of genetic and environmental factors that greatly increase a predisposition to addiction, and either one bad decision - or one surgery or incident that results in exposure to opioids - can result in a nearly unbreakable addiction for many people.

Demonizing addicts reduces the likelihood of seeking treatment, and likely contributes to the depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders that frequently accompany opioid addiction. We should treat addition as the medical disorder it is and not criminalize and demonize individuals who are suffering from it. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'd like the people who are opposed to this idea to analyze the full contents of an airline's medical kit for the cost benefit analysis-- if that's how you do your thinking. This is such a no brainer thing to do I kind of assumed it had been done already--- because as I'm implying it's not like anything else in an airplane's medical kit would even be considered newsworthy. And by the way I suspect narcan will get far more use than inflatable life preservers, which no one seems to question.

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 pay more 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.

Good example of the compassion I was talking about

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?

They already do, we did on a bizjet.

The medical system way overdose pain meds. I’ve had three operations and took some pain meds for the first couple of days and then I was off it. Yes, it hurts, it’s supposed to.

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.

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.

I guess that's about the right amount of time for an urgent diversion to get them real EMS care.

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).

Of course I believe in personal responsibility and accountability, but your post shows a striking lack of understanding of the physiology and neuroscience of addiction.

Certain people are genetically predisposed to addiction. This has been proven time and time again. Combine this with the environmental factors that you mentioned (extreme stress or anxiety - aggravated by the same amygdala defects that increase the propensity to become addicted in the first place) can lead someone to addiction.

Saying that it is a "choice" or that people "want" to become addicted is just absolutely nonsensical. Your attitude is one of the primary reasons we're killing 60,000 people a year. And I say "we" because our policies and positions on addiction directly lead to deaths (90%+ of opioid overdoses can be traced back to uncertain dose potency - which only exists in an environment where we criminalize addiction).

I'll stop posting on this topic as I'm drifting away from anything even partially related to airlines, 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.

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 pay more 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.

That is an incredible unrealistic view of the world in terms of addiction. Many people became addicted either as a mental escape from a horrible living situation or because they were prescribed it and later became reliant. I'm sure many would not want to be addicted however the mind is a powerful thing especially when addicted.

I'm happy Delta is putting Narcan onboard to help combat the mounting deaths in the opioid epidemic.

Glad to see some of you are such animals that don't even respect any other lives. I can't believe how inhumane humanity has become. You should be ashamed

Speaking as a physician AND a Delta Medallion frequent flyer for over two decades, I applaud this move on Delta's part. Sometimes, it is not about the money! But there are both financial and humanitarian reasons to do this. First, I believe that someone stated that AA already stocks the opioid antagonist on board its aircraft. That puts the legal liability of not doing it on an entirely different level in my non-lawyer opinion. 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.

ethernal wrote:

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.

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.

johns624 wrote:

ethernal wrote:

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.

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.

Some of us don't have such a black and white view of the world. Good luck on your journey.

Back on topic: Kudos to Delta on this move.

RobertS975 wrote:

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.

I'm sure that they would still need the diversion. The person would still need trained medical care.

Since it seems that the epicenter of the "opioid epidemic" I in the southern Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia area, does that mean that people in that area have a higher-than-average level of addictive personalities? If so, wouldn't that take it out of physiology and put it into "learned behavior"?

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.

I doubt airline passengers are using Heroin. Prescription opioids are more likely.

One of my dearest friend's sons was on Fentonol. Pretty much instant addiction. But hey, more important at the time was getting the child ready to be able to treat brain cancer. But his father carries the opioids and a stick, just in case.

I'm older, so I know a lot of people who have taken opioids. I also know lots of people who needed to be told it isn't the cancer pain anymore, suck it up and stop. If they traveled while on opioids, a family member carried the opioids to prevent OD. E.g., traveling to a very specialized cancer center (often to here as LA has several).

I cannot imagine this is the best use of DL FA training time. CPR, hostile passenger treatment.

Do they have Epi pens? I would estimate every flight has someone who might need one, on average. Opiod overdose? The only ones I know were people who committed intentional suicide. But that epidemic discussion belongs in non-av.

Lightsaber

johns624 wrote:

People become addicts because they want to.

Um, no.

Nobody wakes up one day and says, "ya know, I think today would be a great day to become an addict!"

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.

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.

How many lives will this save?

Training about $50/FA *20,000 FA + $140/pen * 2,000 pens+ inspections pen is there/not expired $500,000= $1,780,000 every 2 years

If this saves, on average, one life per year it is worth it. If less, not worth it.

What are the risks of a pen hurting/killing someone. If even low, more training is required.

Lightsaber

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.

Oh boy. My brother has chronic kidney stones, something that will never go away. I'm happy your wisdom teeth pain went away and you didn't get hooked, but for people dealing with pain management for their whole lives it isn't that simple. Not removing the blame from the addict, but just pointing out how it isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Compassion for your fellow humans is also great to have.