NALTREXONE TESTS MUST BE DONE SWIFTLY

THE decision last week by the Medical Board of Queensland to prohibit
Brisbane doctor Stuart Reece from using naltrexone implants to treat heroin
addicts has serious consequences.

Reece has hundreds of patients, most of whom are desperate to be cured. The
board ruled that Reece ``poses an imminent threat to the wellbeing of
vulnerable persons and immediate action is necessary to protect the
vulnerable persons''.

The point in contention was that naltrexone implants have not yet been
certified to be used in human beings. The West Australian manufacturers of
the implants have stopped production after publication of concerns about
Reece's large practice.

A woman well-known to me -- the mother of a heroin-addicted girl --
yesterday wrote: ``We as parents knew that the implants were not for human
use. However, given that our kids have been injecting poison -- heroin --
of varying quantity and quality for years, the implants provided us with a
means to keep our loved ones alive.

``My daughter has been clean of heroin for four months now and in two
months when the implant runs out -- what then? Where are our kids to go
now? Interstate, obviously. So once again, it is recovery and treatment for
the rich.''

Another letter from a similarly desperate mother: ``My son has an implant
which is five months old and will run out in the next two or three weeks.
Others are in need of implants now and cannot get them. We are extremely
concerned that our sons and daughters who have sought to cure their
addiction and live drug-free will be prevented from completing their
treatment. We sought assurance that these implants would be available and
not withheld -- via MP David Jull -- who wrote to the Prime Minister on
behalf of myself and Mothers Against Drugs.

``We can understand the need for protection of the public from harmful and
dangerous drugs. Here we have the opposite, and those seeking to live a
heroin-free life are being used in a battle which has nothing to do with
recovery. It is ludicrous that the one treatment which is not addictive is
subjected to such intervention.'' The women's anguish is understandable.
The Health Department must step in immediately with continued treatment of
Reece's patients, who should not be made to suffer any more than they are
already. Neither should the torment of their families be further fuelled.

THE Medical Board had, on the facts available, little option but to act as
it did. Reece, as well-intentioned and expert as he is, is clearly unable
to effectively cater for the workload he has attracted. Perhaps that
highlights the real problem -- the dearth of real options for
drug-dependent young people. There is a dreadful shortage of facilities for
the detoxification and subsequent rehabilitation of such people once they
avail themselves of treatment, with the effect that many fail for the want
of basic post-treatment care. Very few addicts have the genuine, loving
support typified by the letter-writers quoted above. Many have to depend on
professional services and facilities provided by government -- and with
very little personal, friendly support.

The Medical Board acted correctly in taking the action it did. It would be
wrong, and totally irresponsible in this day and age, to allow drugs to be
used on people when those products have not been through the appropriate
laboratory tests. There is also the matter of legal liability should there
be unforeseen longer-term consequences. There is already evidence -- or
assertions at least -- that deaths have occurred among naltrexone implant
patients that could or should have been avoided.

The onus lies with the state and federal governments to ensure naltrexone
is tested to the required standards, and if it is found to have the safe
qualities attributed to it, the product should be released with the
appropriate warnings and safeguards. Naltrexone has been around now for
some years, and it is reasonable to expect that final evaluation should not
takes years more.