Kristin E Schneider1, Ju Nyeong Park2, Sean T Allen2, Brian W Weir2, Susan G Sherman2. 1. 25802 Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. 25802 Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Delivering and receiving prompt medical care during an overdose are imperative to ensure survival. Good Samaritan laws encourage people to call 911 during an overdose by providing immunity from selected drug arrests (eg, low-level possession). However, it is unclear whether persons who inject drugs (PWID) are aware of and understand these laws and their implications. We examined awareness among PWID of the 2015 Good Samaritan law in Maryland and their beliefs about whether they could be arrested for calling 911 or having an overdose. METHODS: We surveyed 298 PWID in Baltimore, Maryland. We estimated the proportion who knew what the Good Samaritan law addressed and who believed they could be arrested for calling 911 or overdosing. We used a multivariate model to assess the association between harm-reduction services and knowledge of the Good Samaritan law or beliefs about getting arrested for calling 911 or overdosing. RESULTS: Of PWID, 56 of 298 (18.8%) knew what the Good Samaritan law addressed, 43 of 267 (16.1%) believed they could be arrested for calling 911, and 32 of 272 (11.8%) believed they could be arrested for having an overdose. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, accessing the syringe services program was associated with accurate knowledge and the belief that PWID could be arrested for calling 911; however, training in overdose reversal was not associated. CONCLUSIONS: Most PWID were unaware of the Good Samaritan law; this lack of awareness is a barrier to preventing overdose deaths. Educating PWID about Good Samaritan laws is essential, and such education should include police to ensure that law enforcement is congruent with Good Samaritan laws and does not perpetuate mistrust between police and PWID.
OBJECTIVES: Delivering and receiving prompt medical care during an overdose are imperative to ensure survival. Good Samaritan laws encourage people to call 911 during an overdose by providing immunity from selected drug arrests (eg, low-level possession). However, it is unclear whether persons who inject drugs (PWID) are aware of and understand these laws and their implications. We examined awareness among PWID of the 2015 Good Samaritan law in Maryland and their beliefs about whether they could be arrested for calling 911 or having an overdose. METHODS: We surveyed 298 PWID in Baltimore, Maryland. We estimated the proportion who knew what the Good Samaritan law addressed and who believed they could be arrested for calling 911 or overdosing. We used a multivariate model to assess the association between harm-reduction services and knowledge of the Good Samaritan law or beliefs about getting arrested for calling 911 or overdosing. RESULTS: Of PWID, 56 of 298 (18.8%) knew what the Good Samaritan law addressed, 43 of 267 (16.1%) believed they could be arrested for calling 911, and 32 of 272 (11.8%) believed they could be arrested for having an overdose. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, accessing the syringe services program was associated with accurate knowledge and the belief that PWID could be arrested for calling 911; however, training in overdose reversal was not associated. CONCLUSIONS: Most PWID were unaware of the Good Samaritan law; this lack of awareness is a barrier to preventing overdose deaths. Educating PWID about Good Samaritan laws is essential, and such education should include police to ensure that law enforcement is congruent with Good Samaritan laws and does not perpetuate mistrust between police and PWID.
Entities:
Keywords:
Good Samaritan laws; harm reduction; opioids; overdose; persons who inject drugs
Authors: Caleb J Banta-Green; Leo Beletsky; Jennifer A Schoeppe; Phillip O Coffin; Patricia C Kuszler Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Robin A Pollini; Lisa McCall; Shruti H Mehta; David D Celentano; David Vlahov; Steffanie A Strathdee Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Stephen E Lankenau; Karla D Wagner; Karol Silva; Aleksandar Kecojevic; Ellen Iverson; Miles McNeely; Alex H Kral Journal: J Community Health Date: 2013-02
Authors: Nicholas C Peiper; Sarah Duhart Clarke; Louise B Vincent; Dan Ciccarone; Alex H Kral; Jon E Zibbell Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2018-10-03
Authors: Andrea M Lopez; Matthew Thomann; Zena Dhatt; Julieta Ferrera; Marwa Al-Nassir; Margaret Ambrose; Shane Sullivan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Fiona Mercer; Joanna Astrid Miler; Bernie Pauly; Hannah Carver; Kristina Hnízdilová; Rebecca Foster; Tessa Parkes Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alexandria Macmadu; Annajane Yolken; Lisa Frueh; Jai'el R Toussaint; Roxxanne Newman; Brendan P Jacka; Alexandra B Collins; Brandon D L Marshall Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2022-10-18
Authors: Ju Nyeong Park; Kristin E Schneider; David Fowler; Susan G Sherman; Ramin Mojtabai; Paul S Nestadt Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2022 Jan-Feb 01 Impact factor: 3.702