|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 6:36:55 GMT -5
So I'm going to go ahead and assume you all know what Narcan is. If not, let me know.
Not too long ago someone walked into a public library in the city I live near, went into the bathroom, and proceeded to shoot up and OD on heroin. Thankfully someone found this person and was able to get them help in time to save their life. But now the libraries in the area are having presentations teaching librarians to use Narcan, and there's a big debate over whether or not librarians should have to learn how to use Narcan in case this happens again. I assume they assume it will happen again, because public libraries offer easy access to restrooms where people can privately shoot up.
So what do you think? Should Librarians have to learn to use Narcan just in case?
Just so you all know, I have no interest in debating whether or not drug users bring it on themselves, or whether or not users' lives deserve to be saved. I think anyone who is dying deserves at least the attempt to save their life where possible. I will not debate those things. I will post my response below.
|
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 6:40:41 GMT -5
Right now librarians in my area have the option to take the class that teaches when and how to use Narcan. If you want to learn that's great, but I don't think it should be a requirement. Librarians don't go to school in order to offer medical assistance. They are librarians, not nurses. They should not be required to learn how to use Narcan. I worry about the liability of this too. What happens when someone ODs in a library and no one gets to them in time? Will the family sue the library for not saving their loved one's life?
Some people around here are comparing Narcan to having an AED. I see these as completely different things, although I'm not sure I can explain why.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirrtybutter on May 18, 2017 6:44:52 GMT -5
Right now librarians in my area have the option to take the class that teaches when and how to use Narcan. If you want to learn that's great, but I don't think it should be a requirement. Librarians don't go to school in order to offer medical assistance. They are librarians, not nurses. They should not be required to learn how to use Narcan. I worry about the liability of this too. What happens when someone ODs in a library and no one gets to them in time? Will the family sue the library for not saving their loved one's life? Some people around here are comparing Narcan to having an AED. I see these as completely different things, although I'm not sure I can explain why. Also signed Butter. |
|
jdluvr
Seeker
Posts: 707
Likes: 863
|
Post by jdluvr on May 18, 2017 6:49:43 GMT -5
I don't think they should be required to but I think classes like this should be offered across the country because it will happen again.
|
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 7:00:08 GMT -5
I don't think they should be required to but I think classes like this should be offered across the country because it will happen again. But this brings up the liability question again. Let's assume no librarians at Public Library A decide to learn to use Narcan. Someone goes into their restroom, ODs on heroin, and dies because no one knew how to use Narcan, and he was found too late for EMTs to save him. Can his family sue the library because no one there opted to take the course? Does even the offering of the classes allow people to assume that someone at every library will know how and when to use Narcan? |
|
|
|
Post by snippet17 on May 18, 2017 7:00:22 GMT -5
Right now librarians in my area have the option to take the class that teaches when and how to use Narcan. If you want to learn that's great, but I don't think it should be a requirement. Librarians don't go to school in order to offer medical assistance. They are librarians, not nurses. They should not be required to learn how to use Narcan. I worry about the liability of this too. What happens when someone ODs in a library and no one gets to them in time? Will the family sue the library for not saving their loved one's life? Some people around here are comparing Narcan to having an AED. I see these as completely different things, although I'm not sure I can explain why. I agree with you on all of this. How are people comparing Narcan to having an AED? I do not recall seeing those at some of the public libraries, but it has been a few years since I been to one. I could see people complaining that if a librarian can admissions and give out Narcan that they should be able to do that same thing with EPIpens and other life saving medicines. I see it being a major liability issue, if librarians are trained to use Narcan and have it on stock. Are they going to start requiring other professions to learn how to use it, too, such as high school teachers? |
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 7:07:54 GMT -5
Right now librarians in my area have the option to take the class that teaches when and how to use Narcan. If you want to learn that's great, but I don't think it should be a requirement. Librarians don't go to school in order to offer medical assistance. They are librarians, not nurses. They should not be required to learn how to use Narcan. I worry about the liability of this too. What happens when someone ODs in a library and no one gets to them in time? Will the family sue the library for not saving their loved one's life? Some people around here are comparing Narcan to having an AED. I see these as completely different things, although I'm not sure I can explain why. I agree with you on all of this. How are people comparing Narcan to having an AED? I do not recall seeing those at some of the public libraries, but it has been a few years since I been to one. I could see people complaining that if a librarian can admissions and give out Narcan that they should be able to do that same thing with EPIpens and other life saving medicines. I see it being a major liability issue, if librarians are trained to use Narcan and have it on stock. Are they going to start requiring other professions to learn how to use it, too, such as high school teachers? The AED argument is that both are live saving devices and if librarians have to take the CPR/AED course there is already the expectation that they can save lives. They should therefor be required to learn how to use Narcan as well, since there's a chance they could be in a position to have to save a life. I also haven't been in a library for a while so I can't tell you if there are AEDs, or if librarians are required to learn how to use them. I don't think librarians should be required to learn CPR or AEDs either. This is another case where if I you want to learn great, but you are not a nurse and should not be expected to administer any life saving treatments. We have a serious opioid/heroin epidemic here. I wouldn't be surprised if the teachers in my area are required to learn how to use Narcan soon, but I don't think it should be required of them either. |
|
|
|
Post by ven on May 18, 2017 7:45:40 GMT -5
I have no idea what narcan is
|
|
|
|
Post by eba1012 on May 18, 2017 7:53:17 GMT -5
I agree with you on all of this. How are people comparing Narcan to having an AED? I do not recall seeing those at some of the public libraries, but it has been a few years since I been to one. I could see people complaining that if a librarian can admissions and give out Narcan that they should be able to do that same thing with EPIpens and other life saving medicines. I see it being a major liability issue, if librarians are trained to use Narcan and have it on stock. Are they going to start requiring other professions to learn how to use it, too, such as high school teachers? The AED argument is that both are live saving devices and if librarians have to take the CPR/AED course there is already the expectation that they can save lives. They should therefor be required to learn how to use Narcan as well, since there's a chance they could be in a position to have to save a life. I also haven't been in a library for a while so I can't tell you if there are AEDs, or if librarians are required to learn how to use them. I don't think librarians should be required to learn CPR or AEDs either. This is another case where if I you want to learn great, but you are not a nurse and should not be expected to administer any life saving treatments.
We have a serious opioid/heroin epidemic here. I wouldn't be surprised if the teachers in my area are required to learn how to use Narcan soon, but I don't think it should be required of them either. This is where I am. There's a pretty serious opioid epidemic near my hometown, and all of the emergency services people (fire/EMT/police/etc.) are trained in the administration of Narcan, and I believe they carry it at all times on the job. I don't think we can require everyone who might possibly/someday/hypothetically encounter an OD to be trained in administering Narcan. There are too many variables and too much liability. I honestly don't know what the answer is. I think it's good to have more people trained to do that, but requiring it seems like a slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 7:53:38 GMT -5
I have no idea what narcan is Narcan is actually called Naloxone. It is used to reverse the effects of opioids in the body. So if someone is ODing in an opioid they can be given this shot and it can keep that person alive. As as a side note, I know someone who was just put on fentynyl (I don't know how to spell that) to treat her pain. She was also put on a small dose of Narcan to combat the side effects caused by opioids. |
|
|
|
Post by daub23 on May 18, 2017 7:59:38 GMT -5
I agree with you completely, LINGERLONGER. I do think the classes should be optional, but the liability issues concern me, particularly for the librarians (I am not sure if libraries are generally protected under the "can't sue the government" idea). What if it is improperly administered? What if it is administered but the person dies anyway? What if it is administered but the person sustains long-term damage somehow? What if it is administered and the person has an allergic reaction to the Narcan? So many what-ifs for a person who is a non-medical professional to face. |
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 8:03:31 GMT -5
I agree with you completely, LINGERLONGER . I do think the classes should be optional, but the liability issues concern me, particularly for the librarians (I am not sure if libraries are generally protected under the "can't sue the government" idea). What if it is improperly administered? What if it is administered but the person dies anyway? What if it is administered but the person sustains long-term damage somehow? What if it is administered and the person has an allergic reaction to the Narcan? So many what-ifs for a person who is a non-medical professional to face. I have read that if you receive a dose of Narcan, but it is not needed, there will be no ill effects, but I agree with the concerns about allergic reactions. |
|
|
|
Post by efmcc67 on May 18, 2017 8:13:55 GMT -5
Right now librarians in my area have the option to take the class that teaches when and how to use Narcan. If you want to learn that's great, but I don't think it should be a requirement. Librarians don't go to school in order to offer medical assistance. They are librarians, not nurses. They should not be required to learn how to use Narcan. I worry about the liability of this too. What happens when someone ODs in a library and no one gets to them in time? Will the family sue the library for not saving their loved one's life? Some people around here are comparing Narcan to having an AED. I see these as completely different things, although I'm not sure I can explain why. Thank you!! I went to library school to learn about the arrangement, description, storage, and retrieval of information. If I'd wanted to be a nurse, I would have gone to school for that. If Narcan training were offered, I'd take it, but more as a concerned citizen who happens to be a librarian, rather than because I'm librarian. I'd frankly be concerned if my employer told us that we had to do Narcan training, just in case. Also, why should this be required for librarians specifically, and not everyone else who works in a public facing job? And the liability issue is a huge concern. There are Good Samaritan laws around AEDs and CPR, protecting people who try and fail to save someone's life. I'm not aware if there's anything similar for Narcan at this point. (As a side note re: AEDs: In my old library, we actually had a battle to get AEDs installed, because people were afraid of the liability of having them. That is, if we had them and failed to save someone's life, would we be sued? When we first tried installing them, administration told us we'd have to have a prescription for the AED, and have one designated "life saver" on staff, who would have it built into their job description. At this point, there's enough Good Samaritan case law that it wasn't considered a risk compared to the benefit, and admin went back on their stupid requirements. They were finally able to get them installed right as I was leaving. I was on the committee that got them approved, and I'm pretty proud of that.) |
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 8:21:49 GMT -5
I was hoping you'd weigh in efmcc67. It's interesting to hear about the battle to get an AED installed. I have no doubt the focus is on librarians right now because that's where this person happened to OD, but in my state at least, it would quickly expand. So where does it end? Will cashiers be required to learn how to administer it if there is a public restroom in their store? Some people in the comments of the story I was reading said they thought addicts should just die if they OD, and they would not save the addict. Would those people be held liable for not helping? There are too many questions here. |
|
|
|
Post by efmcc67 on May 18, 2017 8:27:34 GMT -5
I was hoping you'd weigh in efmcc67 . It's interesting to hear about the battle to get an AED installed. I have no doubt the focus is on librarians right now because that's where this person happened to OD, but in my state at least, it would quickly expand. So where does it end? Will cashiers be required to learn how to administer it if there is a public restroom in their store? Some people in the comments of the story I was reading said they thought addicts should just die if they OD, and they would not save the addict. Would those people be held liable for not helping? There are too many questions here. I'm sure you're right, but it really could happen anywhere. Will they feel they same one someone in their field ODs and people demand that all (fill in the blank) employees learn to use Narcan? As with so many things, there aren't simple answers. When something like this happens, it's easy to be reactionary and say "every librarian should know how to do this! It will save lives!" Well, maybe a couple, but I would be willing to guess that I could go through the rest of my career and probably never stumble across someone ODing in the library. |
|
|
|
Post by snippet17 on May 18, 2017 8:53:08 GMT -5
I was hoping you'd weigh in efmcc67 . It's interesting to hear about the battle to get an AED installed. I have no doubt the focus is on librarians right now because that's where this person happened to OD, but in my state at least, it would quickly expand. So where does it end? Will cashiers be required to learn how to administer it if there is a public restroom in their store? Some people in the comments of the story I was reading said they thought addicts should just die if they OD, and they would not save the addict. Would those people be held liable for not helping? There are too many questions here. I looked up narcan and libraries. It looks like some major cities are doing that. I agree there are too many questions and I feel like too much liability for the general public. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on May 18, 2017 9:01:41 GMT -5
Are people who are CPR certified required to keep an eye out for anyone who's heart may have stopped?
Are people who work around public bathrooms required to keep a ticker of who is in and out of the bathroom?
An employees primary responsibility is to ensure that their job is completed properly and safely. Period. If someone VOLUNTEERS to be certified, great, but they shouldn't be reprimanded for not doing so.
I think it would be a good idea to put it in CPR certification and keep it with other life-saving equiptment. That said, depending on the size of the library, there should be a % of people who are required to be Life-Saving certified, but not everyone should be. Maybe one to four designated, trained volunteer employees per 25-50 employees who have FT hours? If it's a small library with very few FT employees, then no fucking way. If the library is part of a larger government building (like in my hometown - town hall, tax collector, library, planning, etc. are all one building) then yes, but those people who ARE certified don't necessarily need to be librarians.
In schools, the school nurse should be able to do that, and if he/she can't then another designated first-aid-certified person should be able to.
Question: Do all teachers need to be first-aid/CPR certified?
ALSO, at the risk of possibly sounding like a dick, not everyone is mentally/physically/emotionally equipped to save lives. If you don't want to learn CPR, you really SHOULDN'T get certified. IIRC, if you ARE certified, aren't you required to provide assistance until professionals arrive? Making people perform critical tasks they can't (for whatever reason) can in some instances be just as dangerous as not performing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by eba1012 on May 18, 2017 9:06:30 GMT -5
As the Aunt of an overdose victim. Yes require the training, have it available, no liability I'm not even going to address the drive-by nature of this post, but exempting people from liability would require Good Samaritan laws (or something similar), would it not? Just speaking it into existence doesn't make it so. You need to have lawmakers who actually care about putting those sorts of laws in place. Oh wait... That also doesn't take into account the pressure you're putting on non-medical professionals to attempt to save someone's life. ETA: Obviously I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the exact legalities of everything. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on May 18, 2017 9:08:13 GMT -5
As the Aunt of an overdose victim. Yes require the training, have it available, no liability I'm not even going to address the drive-by nature of this post, but exempting people from liability would require Good Samaritan laws (or something similar), would it not? Just speaking it into existence doesn't make it so. You need to have lawmakers who actually care about putting those sorts of laws in place. Oh wait... That also doesn't take into account the pressure you're putting on non-medical professionals to attempt to save someone's life.THIS |
|
|
|
Post by efmcc67 on May 18, 2017 9:09:56 GMT -5
Are people who are CPR certified required to keep an eye out for anyone who's heart may have stopped? Are people who work around public bathrooms required to keep a ticker of who is in and out of the bathroom? An employees primary responsibility is to ensure that their job is completed properly and safely. Period. If someone VOLUNTEERS to be certified, great, but they shouldn't be reprimanded for doing so. I think it would be a good idea to put it in CPR certification and keep it with other life-saving equiptment. That said, depending on the size of the library, there should be a % of people who are required to be Life-Saving certified, but not everyone should be. Maybe one to four designated, trained volunteer employees per 25-50 employees who have FT hours? If it's a small library with very few FT employees, then no fucking way. If the library is part of a larger government building (like in my hometown - town hall, tax collector, library, planning, etc. are all one building) then yes, but those people who ARE certified don't necessarily need to be librarians. In schools, the school nurse should be able to do that, and if he/she can't then another designated first-aid-certified person should be able to. Question: Do all teachers need to be first-aid/CPR certified? ALSO, at the risk of possibly sounding like a dick, not everyone is mentally/physically/emotionally equipped to save lives. If you don't want to learn CPR, you really SHOULDN'T get certified. IIRC, if you ARE certified, aren't you required to provide assistance until professionals arrive? Making people perform critical tasks they can't (for whatever reason) can in some instances be just as dangerous as not performing them. CPR certification: I just did the training last fall. They never said that we were required to watch for people who are having heart failure, just how to recognize signs, check for heart failure (versus another reason for passing out), how to request help, and how to perform CPR and use an AED. Public bathrooms: I'm not aware of this being a requirement, though I suppose it could vary state-to-state or by industry. When I did the CPR certification, it did include Narcan, but just as an overview. Regarding teachers and first aid/CPR: This was not a requirement when I was an education major, but requirements vary widely by state, and that was 15 years ago. |
|
