A tweet this week from Newton City Councillor Emily Norton reminded me that it’s been a while since we’ve had an update on efforts to equip Newton police and firefighters with Narcan, the emergency drug that’s being used effectively in many instances to combat opiate overdoses.
Jonathan Dame reported in the TAB two months ago that the delay in Newton is tied to a collective bargaining break down. (Dame also reported at the time that all Newton schools are stocked with Narcan and they’ve have begun training school nurses to administer the drug.)
Meanwhile state police this week issued a warning that “exceptionally deadly” brand of heroin has entered the state.
So Village 14 asked Mayor Warren’s office for an update. Here’s the response we received via an email statement from Dori Zaleznik, the mayor’s Chief Administrative Officer.
“We know this is a critical issue that we take very seriously. First responders carrying narcan is currently being discussed with the fire and police unions. The City has an active Opioid Working Group that is discussing a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to the opioid crisis in Massachusetts.”
This is inexcusable. You can bet there will be a lot of finger pointing after someone dies unnecessarily.
It’s hard to imagine what problems the union would have with this.
Shame on the unions if they’re trying to use this as a bargaining chip
We learned at a Programs and Services Committee meeting in November that five people died of overdoses in Newton last year – and that is probably an under count as the cause of death is not always reported accurately in these cases.
It is clear from speaking to Newton rank and file firefighters that they want to carry Narcan. They are proud of their profession and their mission of saving lives and want to have every tool in the toolkit available to save a life. No one thinks Narcan is the only solution to a person suffering addiction but you don’t even have a shot at it if the person has died.
It is clear from speaking with residents that they are shocked and horrified that our firefighters in particular are not already equipped with this lifesaving measure, particularly when our neighboring communities have been able to pull it off.
I am not privy to union discussions but if indeed this is a matter of the firefighter union holding out on agreeing to carry Narcan while they negotiate for some other bennie, then I cannot even find the words to express my outrage, disgust, and wonder at how these individuals are able to sleep at night.
Has anyone contacted the Union leadership and asked them what the issues are? Are we assuming that it’s the Unions that are holding this up? I don’t know but I’m not willing to speculate. I’d like to hear from the Unions on this.
At some point the police and firefighters need to be responsible for what appears to be irresponsible union leadership. This could be the beginning of a public relations nightmare that backfires on the unions.
I have to agree with Whole Truth. I’ve never known those unions to do anything that would jeopardize public safety. Just the opposite in fact. We’re talking about men and women who put their lives on the line everyday. They are the last people I would expect to make a bargaining issue of public safety. And if that were the case, the mayor’s office should be publicly calling them out on that, rather than issuing an ambiguous statement.
We don’t have anything close to a full vetting of this issue. We can assume that the use of the drug Narcan would involve some serious training and oversight. Health and safety issues are a top priority in this city. The very thought that any of our first responders would refuse to use it as a negotiating tool is appalling.
No, Emily, you are not privy to union discussions so it might be best to be more judicious in your choice of words about these “individuals” whose job is to keep the city safe.
Maybe the city is still working on its “comprehensive multi-pronged approach to the opioids crisis” since it says they are discussing it with the unions. Maybe it includes more than just training and carrying Narcan. Maybe it is not a problem with the union.
Training to use Narcan takes an hour.
@Jane I’m saying what I’m saying here for a reason.
@emily, training may take an hour but I would venture a guess that it’s not about training. I seem to recall some discussion about this a few months ago where the question of liability was suggested as part of the problem.
@Jeffrey, you are assuming that it’s the Union that is holding this up. Again, we don’t know. You and others may be right but until the facts are known, it does no good to point fingers at one side or the other.
How can we learn more information about this active Opioid Working Group? Who is part of it, and how were these individuals identified? I ask as discussing a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to addressing the root causes of this problem is counterproductive without the right team in place. If you’ve ever felt the feeling of helplessness when witnessing a friend or family member overdosing, you’d understand that this is one area in which we should all hold leadership accountable rather than argue and make excuses for insufficient action.
I have never posted on V14 before, but do so now, as I see an egregious act taking place. There are 3 posts that to varying degrees imply, suggest or outright accuse the fire union as placing their own greed ahead public safety. Jerry Reilly, Emily Norton, and Jeff Pontiff, have made these accusations.
Where is even the slightest proof to offer? These are wild accusations, not founded in any fact. They do a disservice to those you attack personally, and to the community as a whole.
I call out our City Councilor Norton in particular in this matter. Having recently been on the receiving end of people accusing her of taking a selfish position, ahead of what was best for the city, you would think she would be a bit careful before slinging mud. This is beneath any of us, but has no place for an elected official.
I asked her repeatedly for what proof she had to back her statements accusing the fire union of such selfish tactics. I still await some rational response.
These are the men and women we ask to risk their lives on our behalf, and now some of you turn around and accuse them of placing their own monetary gain ahead of saving the lives of people. I reject this, specifically having spoken to members of the union, and because I know these individuals for a long time. I have never known a group of more dedicated, fair minded folks in my life. Do they want a better life for their family, you bet. But not at the expense of other innocent people.
The use of Narcan in the context of the opioid epidemic is not such a simple question. Nothing is resolved, no one is helped long term by the only step taken being that first responders carry Narcan. In my opinion, carrying Narcan in many ways is the smallest least important public policy issue to discuss, and currently it seems to be the only focus.
It is irrational and contrary to previous history to suggest that these men and women would do anything to jeopardize the lives and safety of the community for their personal gain.
Need I remind you of the Stark Fire,or the Boston College incident when one of the firefighters almost lost his life;to name just two; these people sacrifice too much, to have their integrity impugned without so much as a single bit of evidence to back up the claim.
That is all I ask, if you are going to denigrate an individual’s integrity, have at least some fact to substantiate it.
@Neal Fleisher – I have no details of why it is taking the city of Newton so long to equip it’s public safety folks with Narcan. This is something that has been discussed for quite some time, has been implemented by other towns, and can demonstrably save lives.
I am not privy to any details of discussions between the city and the unions. The only thing I know about it is that the mayor’s Chief Adminstrative Officer said “is currently being discussed with the fire and police unions”.
It’s not unreasonable to ask what’s the holdup here. I didn’t accuse anyone of anything. I said “IF if they’re trying to use this as a bargaining chip”. If its taking many months of discussions between the union and the city to implement this relatively simple lifesaving initiative, its not unreasonable to surmise that this may be part of some union/city negotiations.
If you have any light to shed, please do.
Jerry:
This is what you wrote:
Jerry Reilly
January 8, 2016 04:26 PM
It’s hard to imagine what problems the union would have with this.
Shame on the unions if they’re trying to use this as a bargaining chip”
.
You took Emily’s unsubstantiated comments as plausible , and went from there. That was wrong.
I know that the union adamantly denies trying to use the issue of carrying Narcan as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
Until someone provides some proof to the contrary, I think it unfair to make statements suggesting it might be true.
@Neal Fleisher – I wrote my comment before Emily Norton posted anything. I was only responding to the statement from Dori Zaleznik in the context of months and months and months having passed since this issue was first raised.
Once again … if discussions between the city/union have held this initiative up for so long, its not outlandish to surmise that it’s part of a negotiation process. If not, I’d love for you, the unions, or the city to clarify what is the holdup. Let’s get this done.
Neal writes:
Glad to see none of that is going on here.
Good lord, Jerry. The first line in the thread is a link to Emily’s tweet. It is the basis for the thread. As a matter of fact, that came before your comment.
This thread and my comments is about those maligning the fire union. I ask for some proof they(fire union) are seeking some sort of benefit in return for carrying Narcan.
Jerry, using the qualifier “if” is a pretty lame way of trying to not take responsibility for in essence making an accusation. Why not we have a a substantive discussion regarding what we need to do to impact the opioid epidemic in this country.
I agree with anyone who says that having Narcan available, without any other action taken to address the epidemic; will do absolutely nothing, at best, and may actually have a negative impact. There are a number of articles about it, here is one:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/americas-heroin-epidemic/beyond-narcan-why-heroin-addicts-need-more-overdose-antidote-n269351
There is nothing in Norton’s tweet which assigns blame one way or the other.
Neal, you say, “I agree with anyone who says that having Narcan available, without any other action taken to address the epidemic; will do absolutely nothing, at best, and may actually have a negative impact.”
What negative impact? This is about life or death. Some addicts recover. Some do not. I would rather have a loved-one continue to live as an addict with a chance of recovery than die.
The situation seems pretty simple to me. Responders are not carrying Narcan. It is the City’s fault, the Union’s fault, or both.
There is no doubt that the opioid epidemic is far bigger than first responders carrying/administering Narcan. However, our first responders carrying Narcan is about nothing more than saving lives. I would hope that every member of our police and fire unions, including the union presidents, would put the value of human life, above the value of collective bargaining. I have no inside knowledge, but somebody please tell me what reason the city would have for not wanting to have Narcan carried? That said, with training provided to our first responders on administration, somebody please tell me what reason the union would have for fighting to prevent their members to carry it? Did the unions fight the use of oxygen for victims of smoke inhalation? Did they try and use this as a bargaining chip? If there was another angle from the union’s perspective, why have they not made it public? How many people have passed as a result of not carrying Narcan? How many people will pass until it is carried?
Again, the Opioid crisis is so much bigger than Narcan, and has it’s own course of action. This is about giving the first responders the tools they need to save lives. That said, I truly believe that our Fireman and Police Officers are not opposed to carrying and saving lives, as that is why they do what they do. I see this as the unions taking advantage of a situation. Yes I am speculation. Somebody feel free to provide information to the contrary.
If the argument is that you want to do something to help heroin addicts, then you have to have a discussion that goes beyond the use of Narcan. I know of no one who is opposed to first responders carrying Narcan.
But, if after taking a vote and agreeing that first responders carry it, and nothing else happens, then we have done nothing to help those addicts. In fact, some evidence suggests we may be encouraging them to take even higher doses and riskier behavior. There is little information available, as this information is not routinely kept, but there seems to be a high recidivism rate, after narcan treatment. So what good is it if we may be in essence enabling the addict; if we can offer no treatment?
Again, I do not know anyone suggesting that 1st responders not carry it, I believe the discussion is focused on if we should be doing more than that. I think it a noble effort to try to push officials beyond the politically expedient moment, and trying to really help people in need.
Neal,
If nobody is against carrying Narcan, than why are our first responders not carrying it? If not carrying it is meant to be a deterrent, than what should we tell the loved ones of those who could have been saved? Would they not want a little more time to help get their family members the help they need?
Again, the attack on the opioid epidemic needs to be multifaceted, but why not put Narcan in the toolbox?
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/14/narcan-it-saves-lives-does-it-enable-addicts#.EjePRwJuG
Believe it or not, some addicts react fairly angrily at someone who has administered Narcan, effectively, stopping the high they just paid for:
http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/WSAZ-Investigates–Narcan-Saving-Lives-Not-Changing-Them–338554402.html
These are some of the concerns, no one that I know of, is trying to use this as a bargaining chip, Randy, and pure speculation, questioning a groups motivation, with no basis, is a disservice to those you accuse and the community at large.
So the concern is that the 4 firefighters on a responding crew would not risk bodily harm to save a life? Isn’t that what they signed up for? Could they all be taken by one addict? I have not hidden the fact that most of what I have said is speculation, but please give me another angle. That is not meant for you Neal. The union presidents must be willing to share their take.
Neal, the high recidivism rate among most heron users, as well as most adicts of other kinds. To say there is SOME evidence is certainly not conclusive as to the causation. I would certainly err on the side of saving a life rather than not regardless of circumstance so it’s hard to understand where you stand. Let someone die instead of trying to save their life? Really? I’ve heard no paramedic ever say … !!!
A step further. Two people die each day in Massachusetts from heroin overdose, and that means that we have a chance of saving lives every day. I served for years protecting this country from enemies foreign and domestic. I would have given my life to save another without question, regardless of the risk. I truly believe that our first responders feel the same way, and they should be provided with everything they need to save lives.
There is a high recidivism rate among herion users …..
Proofread – no I didn’t.
Randy: I don’t know why it isn’t in every patrol car and every fire engine. My suspicion is there is blame to go around, starting with the mayor, for lack of leadership, with the fire chief, and the union as well. This was clearly not a priority of the city for an extremely long time, so how can you blame the unions? Now there is some political pressure from the Governor, and they(the city) are suddenly all interested again.
I do think there are some legitimate concerns that need to be discussed, but it is my hope that Narcan would be available as soon as possible. I think it grossly unfair to attack the union, and suggest they are using it as a bargaining chip- it is not nearly as simple as that.
Gov. Patrick issued an emergency order almost 2 years ago, in March of 2014, directing that all of the state’s police, firefighters and emergency personnel be equipped with Naloxone (Narcan). Since then, the Commonwealth’s Dept. of Health and Human Services has developed a Comprehensive Strategy to End Opiod Abuse in Massachusetts. ALL first responders in Massachusetts are permitted to carry and administer Naloxone (Narcan).. In conjunction with that strategy, the Health and Human Services has provided training to over 2,000 individuals “by-standers” on the proper use and administration of Naloxone to reverse the effects of heroin.
Last month, a documentary entitled “Heroin: Cape Cod, USA” debuted on HBO. Heroin has been a very significant problem on the Cape for many years, and it is now quite widespread throughout the Commonwealth. Why the City of Newton has to re-invent the wheel to study this issue I do not know. But in the meantime, Naloxone is “extraordinarily effective” in reversing the effects of opiods and preventing death from a fatal overdose. This is a tool should already be in the hands of our emergency responders. I don’t know, nor do I care “why” our emergency folks aren’t carrying it yet; this needs to happen yesterday.
Lisap is correct. Assigning blame isn’t nearly as important as getting this tool into the hands of our police and fire fighters.
And Neal, you don’t waste any time do you? When you use words like “my suspicion is” you are as guilty of jumping to conclusions as those you’re criticizing for jumping to conclusions.
@Greg:your logic on this is flawed. Not all suspicions are the same, some are based on some evidence, others just speculation.(I suspect OJ did it.I base it on the cut on his hand, the strange behavior, etc.)
I asked Emily multiple times, and she would not offer any information, which leads to just speculation.
In my case, I have a suspicion but it is based on a number of different pieces of information. We could quibble about the quality of my information, but not really a worthwhile endeavor.
I mentioned earlier in this thread, it being my first post. I intend to make this my last.