NCJ Number
205904
Journal
Youth Studies Australia Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Dated: June 2004 Pages: 17-21
Date Published
June 2004
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article proposes that a combination of the principles of duty-of-care and harm reduction is the most effective basis for designing services for youth involved in the inhalation of volatile substances.
Abstract
Australia's Department of Human Services defines "duty-of-care" as "a duty to take reasonable care of a person." Under the laws of negligence, duty-of-care is breached when a person behaves unreasonably in action or inaction that results in harm to another person. What is considered "reasonable" will depend on all the circumstances of a particular situation. Regarding harm minimization with regard to drug use, there are three platforms on which strategies for responding to drugs and related issues are based. First, supply reduction aims to reduce the production, distribution, and consumption of harmful drugs. Second, demand reduction focuses on reducing the demand for drugs and therefore drug consumptions. Third, harm reduction aims to reduce the risks associated with the consumption of drugs in order to achieve better health outcomes for the drug user and others involved without necessarily reducing consumption. Harm reduction approaches are consistent with the responsibility for duty-of-care, since the goal of best practice is to reduce drug-related harms for the individual and the community. A "zero tolerance" strategy for responding to youth who inhale volatile substances is problematic for the following reasons: It is inconsistent with national and State drug policies that advocate a public health approach to all substance use; it will not stop youth from inhaling volatile substances; it fails to address the underlying issues in substance-abusing behaviors; and the criminalization of the use of volatile substances compromises "duty-of-care" responsibilities of youth and welfare service workers who are charged with seeking the minimization of harm for drug-abusing clients. This does not mean that secure care cannot be an appropriate response under duty-of-care principles when a youth's protracted and continual use of volatile substances is deemed by care staff to place him/her at immediate risk. Principles of duty-of-care and harm minimization in combination with one another require a flexible approach to individuals who engage in the abuse of volatile substances. It is the responsibility of the care giver to examine all the circumstances of a given case and then devise a strategy deemed to be most effective in reducing the harm of the drug abuse for the individual user and for the community. 12 references