Take-home naloxone' refers to a life-saving intervention in which a drug (naloxone) is made available to nonmedically trained people for administration to other people experiencing an opioid overdose. In Australia, it has not been taken up as widely as would be expected, given its life-saving potential. We consider the actions of take-home naloxone, focusing on how care relations shape its uses and effects. Mobilising Science and Technology Studies insights, we suggest that the uses and effects of naloxone are co-produced within social relations and, therefore, this initiative 'affords' multiple outcomes. We argue that these affordances are shaped by a politics of care, and that these politics relate to uptake. We analyse two complementary case studies, drawn from an interview-based project, in which opioid consumers discussed take-home naloxone and its uses. Our analysis maps the ways take-home naloxone can afford (i) a regime of care within an intimate partnership (allowing a terminally ill man to more safely consume opioids) and (ii) a political process of care (in which a consumer takes care of others treated with the medication by administering it 'gently'). We conclude by exploring the political affordances of a politics of care approach for the uptake of take-home naloxone.

Opioid overdose deaths are increasing in Australia and around the world. Despite this, measures aimed at reducing these deaths such as safe injecting facilities and take-home naloxone continue to face obstacles to uptake. The reasons for this are manifold, but a key contributor is public discourse on opioid consumption and overdose. In this article we explore this public discourse using Judith Butler's work on 'grievable lives'. The article analyses mainstream newspaper coverage of opioid overdose in Australia to map key articulations of overdose and to consider how public understandings of overdose are shaped. It then goes on to consider ways these understandings might be reshaped, looking at what have been called overdose 'anti-memorials' and a new website Livesofsubstance.org. In concluding we argue that until the lives of opioid consumers come to be considered grievable, the measures known to reduce overdose deaths may struggle to find public support.

Opioid overdose deaths are a major health issue in Australia and around the world. Programmes to provide opioid consumers with ‘take-home’ naloxone to reverse overdose exist internationally, but uptake by mainstream health services and consumers remains inconsistent. Researchers have identified a range of important educational, training and logistical impediments to take-home naloxone uptake and distribution, yet they have focused less on the social dynamics that can enhance or limit access, such as stigma. In this article, we also explore impediments to uptake, drawing on qualitative interview data gathered for an Australian research project on take-home naloxone. Mobilising a performative approach to stigma, we argue that overdose and prevention are shaped by the social dynamics of stigma and, as such, responsibility for dealing with overdose, as with take-home naloxone, should also be considered social (i.e. shared among peers, the public, communities and governments). Our interview data illuminate the various ways in which addiction stigma limits the possibilities and capacities of take-home naloxone and overdose prevention. First, we focus on how stigma may impede professional information provision about take-home naloxone by limiting the extent to which it is presented as a matter of interest for all opioid consumers, not just those who consume opioids illicitly. Second, we explore how stigma may limit the scale-up and expansion of programmes and access points. From here, we focus on how stigma co-constitutes the politics of overdose and prevention, rendering take-home naloxone ill-suited to many social settings of overdose. In closing, we point out that stigma is not just a post hoc impediment to access to and use of take-home naloxone but is central to opioid overdose production itself, and to effective prevention. While take-home naloxone is an excellent life-saving initiative, uncritically valorising it may divert attention from broader goals, such as the de-stigmatisation of drug consumption through decriminalisation, and other ambitious attempts to reduce overdose.

No abstract

No abstract