OXYCONTIN SHOWS DILEMMA OF LIBERTY

What do we do when something intended for good is misused?

It might be an exaggeration to call OxyContin a miracle drug. But it is
certainly seen as a godsend to cancer patients and others with chronic,
debilitating pain. Because the medication is powerful and time-released,
those taking it can have 12 hours of smooth, pain-free existence instead of
the sharp high of relief followed rather quickly by the return of pain. And
just by taking two pills 12 hours apart, they can have a pain-free day and
a better night's sleep.

It also might be too strong to call abuse of the medication the nation's
worst drug problem since crack cocaine, but not by much. Abusers crush the
pills to destroy the time-release coating and unleash the drug's full
power, then snort it like cocaine or mix it with water and inject it like
heroin. There have been scores of overdose deaths. Small towns in
Appalachia and elsewhere that have never especially had drug problems have
been devastated. Even here in Fort Wayne, there have been numerous
drugstore robberies in which OxyContin was the main target.

There is predictable chaos. Some drugstores now refuse to carry the drug,
and some doctors won't prescribe it. The drug's manufacturer, Purdue
Pharma, has been sued by people in several states who say the company,
among other things, aggressively pushes doctors to overprescribe the
medication because it wants to fatten its bottom line so. There are
increasing calls to just yank the drug and be done with the problem.

That's the same kind of ethical dilemma we've faced often in this country,
over guns and cars and other medications and products of all kinds.
Something with the potential for good -- indeed, designed for good purposes
- -- is used for evil, and people get hurt or killed who shouldn't.

Do we try to prevent the abuse and deny people benefits the product offers
those in need? Or do we keep the product for its obvious benefits and
condemn a certain number of people to misery?

It's never an easy, black-and-white decision, or at least it shouldn't be.
We have always tried, in this country, to balance interests. And there are
always other parties involved besides the main players we concentrate on.
Drug manufacturers, for example, do make a tremendous amount of money --
more than the illegal pushers make -- for their products. And some doctors
have tended to resort to medication as a treatment of first resort.

That's why some communities are trying to find ways to address the
OxyContin dilemma. A town in Virginia, for example, is using a fingerprint
system to keep track of people who receive the drug. This is nothing new --
that's why there are drunken-driving laws and why communities experiment
with gun control. We want to keep the things we need but prevent, as much
as we can, their misuse.

It's the dilemma of liberty. We cherish the notion -- and we should -- of
living in a country that provides us the maximum freedom to control our own
lives. But that same freedom unleashes those whose judgments are not always
sound or whose instincts are not the most honorable. We have to accept that
as well.

The bottom line is that we are still moral creatures whose actions have
consequences, and we must all accept responsibility for those actions. If
society ever demands less, we will have not just misery but ruin.