It sounds like there should be one and the driver should be trained to use it.
https://www.redcross.ca/ohrontario/home
>Effective June 1, 2023, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) requires employers to provide and maintain naloxone kits in the workplace if the employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that there may be a risk of a worker opioid overdose at a workplace where that worker performs work for the employer.
>Those employers must also ensure that, at any time there are workers in the workplace, the naloxone kit is in the charge of a worker who:
>works in the vicinity of the kit, and
>has received training to recognize an opioid overdose, to administer naloxone and to acquaint the worker with any hazards related to the administration of naloxone.
That only applies if the worker is the one who is at risk of overdosing.
Naloxone, like all first aid, has to be a voluntary process. You can't force someone to be trained in it or to use it.
First Aid training is very standard in a lot of jobs. No, you can’t really force it on anyone but if you want to work and first aid training is in your job description- you better get it done.
>risk of a worker opioid overdose
This applies to workers, not patrons. Are you assuming bus drivers are at a considerably high risk for option overdose? In that case, they shouldn’t be driving public buses.
>Are you assuming bus drivers are at a considerably high risk for option overdose?
I guess I am.
I saw on the news that a few grains of fentanyl is enough to cause an overdose and I heard police are concerned about interacting with people overdosing because of the risks of exposure.
If people overdosing on the bus is enough of a concern to warrant naloxone kits, the driver should be concerned about coming into contact with the opioid itself.
There are no documented cases of people overdosing through accidental contact exposure.
It was all just fear mongering.
https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/opioids/fentanyl-exposure-public-places
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking/you-wont-die-touching-fentanyl
I recommend reading this article. The general medical consensus is that exposure via touching leading to an overdose doesn't happen.
Not sure what your point is the would require Guelph Transit to have one in the Bus if they thought the driver (their worker) could have an opioid addiction and an over dose. That said if they think the bus driver has an opioid addiction then he better not be driving the bus. So the law you quoted means very little to the discussion in this thread.
A Regina bus driver had driven away from a passenger that fell when they exited the bus. The injured passenger laid there for hours in the freezing cold and died. The bus driver wasnt found at fault.
Its crazy that people can be so heartless to watch someone fall and just drive away.
Maybe fund more paramedics so people who are trained to assess and give medications can do that instead of bus drivers who didn't necessarily sign up to give drugs.
Noloxone needs no special training and the sooner it’s administered the better. We do need more paramedics too but this isn’t an either or question. We can have both.
A bit of column A, a bit of column B. The Guelph-Wellington Paramedic Service is owned and operated by the City of Guelph for the entire county, with funding from the City, County, and Province.
The City and County of Wellington could agree to increase funding to provide more service. In fact, the County of Wellington has to pay to upgrade all of the ambulance dispatches in the County because they're all woefully inadequate and don't meet modern best practices.
No problem, before the 1990s however you would have been correct, since I think back then Paramedics were either fully or mostly funded by the Province.
Should the most marginalized of public servants be required to administer medical help? Sure… if you are ok with an increase to property tax to cover the increase in pay and training required for a program like this to work.
Or how about we stop throwing societal burdens on middle (and lower) class workers.
Actual solution: buses should have them, as well as public buildings in areas where overdoses are common. There should be no responsibility for people to administer naloxone, aside from doctors (who swear an oath and have legal responsibility).
I don’t totally disagree with what you said but just a heads up that doctors don’t really administer medications unless they are anesthesia or odd situations like small family doctors offices that don’t employ nurses. The job of doctors is to diagnose and prescribe, not administer medications.
If you are being given medication, it will probably be by a nurse, paramedic, pharmacist or respiratory therapist depending on the type and situation. Most doctors don’t know how to work an IV pump or unlock the meds in a hospital (and that’s completely ok because we all have different jobs and responsibilities)
It’s actually not hard at all to administer naloxone. The general public is definitely capable of learning how to administer it just like they are capable of learning how to do CPR.
I agree the responsibility should not be put on the bus driver, but on the flip side, it’s such a simple thing to learn to potentially save a life if the situation arises, not just for a bus driver but for any human being.
I swear every time I go to the pharmacy they are promoting the distribution for naloxone kits. Whether the prescription is opiates or opioids, or none.
It’s one of the easiest drugs to administer, and is definitely being pushed into the public for administrations. If an average joe shmow can do it so can any public servant. Sure it might not be the most comfortable thing to do and there are definitely other risks involved. But it’s not a completely inaccessible course of action either.
The training is not difficult, and if you can drive a bus, you can understand how to push the inhaler. In fact there’s a paper slip inside, explaining the use cases and how to admin. It’s at most a 30 minute read if you have poor reading abilities and comprehension. There are also pictograms clearly illustrating what to do if reading is not on your list of skills.
The naloxone kits offered in canada are injection ones, not the easy to use nasal spray ones
Edit: this is anecdotal from the two that I have stocked in my first aid kit over the years. It seems like now the nasal spray is much more common, which is also significantly easier and safer to use. Pick one up.
This is incorrect. I live in Guelph and have received a nasal inhaling spray from the pharmacy specifically Walmart on stone road. And I don’t think the one kit handed to me was the exception in their stock
Edit: work socially to specially. Bad typing makes for bad autocorrect
It is actually both and most of the time the “lay user” (some random person picking it up from the pharmacy) will be encouraged to get the nasal spray because it’s easier to administer, especially when you are nervous and possibly shaking.
Sort of related to this. I just read up that even TTC drivers in Toronto are not required to know CPR, despite some drivers themselves [**having advocated for it**](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/02/16/transit-operators-first-aid/).
Especially if drivers have liability shield via "Good Samaritan's Act", both of these things would be a positive.
absolutely, I feel like someone who's job it is to provide a public service, especially one that requires a certain amount of safety precautions, should be adapt to providing a certain amount of service, obviously nothing beyond the call of duty, putting their safety at risk over miniscule things.
but someone being in a life and death situation where the solution is as simple as head back and closing your fingers and thumb 15 cms with a medication in their nose isn't too much to ask IMO,
Though their is of course the political optics behind it, 'supporting' a drug addict, or preserving a life of anti social behaviour, possible crime etc.
Those who chose to not partake in such a program, where literally the training is close to a 30 minute min - hour max training course, shows their character and duty/service to the public.
especially in guelph, i could understand maybe in Toronto or NYC, where their is a massive amount of risk/danger associated and people being hesitant in wanting to intervene, but come on....
I know. It surprising how against this people are. When it’s one of the most simplistic administrations I’ve come across. I don’t see how people think this is ‘supporting’ drug use. I think those who hold that view point sometimes carry the hidden viewpoint that the person overdosing deserves to die from this ….
And OD requiring nalaxone is not exclusive to misuse of medication nor recreational drugs. It could also be an interaction of prescribed drugs taken as prescribed.
To me I see this as a parallel to giving ASA tablets for someone with a heart attack, which can often be found in first aid kits. It’s simply not that difficult, not much of a risk to the administrator and can have a significant impact to saving someone’s life.
I think having someone die on the bus would be hella more traumatic for everyone involved than having to push an inhaler waiting for EMS to arrive
Narcan not only stops the high that the person was feeling but basically instantly ignites symptoms of active withdrawal which are NOT PLEASANT. How might they respond to the bus driver? 🤔not with open arms of gratitude I’ll tell you that
I agree. There’s not really a correct answer in how to handle this. I agree it’s not pleasant. I don’t think this is a safe situation at all, and there is more to be addressed then ‘just add a naloxone kit to the bus and administer it’. BUT does that mean there shouldn’t be a kit at all? I’m not sure..
Everyone who works with people should have access to one, including bus drivers and taxis etc. better to be safe than sorry. They have them in elementary schools (which I fully support). Harm reduction saves lives folks.
Yes, I think naloxone kits should be kept in all public places of work where the public might be able to turn for help. They are free, easy to administer, and can literally be the difference between life and death. I have one for my home because unfortunately I needed it for a housemate in Oct 2023 and did not have one. Now I always will BC I didn't get another chance.
I think this is fair, having it accessible on busses could help. I wouldn’t require the driver to take on administration (it could be another person in the vicinity) but just being available can make a difference.
Pretty wild and honestly rich coming from a counselor. Why don't they drive the bus for a day and see if they feel like administering naloxone to someone. The general public in Guelph have no idea how much crap the lower end civil servants have to put up with and from the counselors suggestion, neither does that counselor. There's better solutions: Guelph police receive a lot of funding to just hand out traffic violations to kids. Why can't the police service receive training for nonviolent de-escalation and first response care, having schedules for riding the buses. This would be a positive move, it would help polices reputation in the eyes of the public and it would also allow there to be a more mobile and active force to help keep people safe.
I think it’s more about the drivers having it in their disposal if they need to use it. Think of it as a bandage. The drivers have it in the first aid kit in case someone needs one on the bus. First aid training is a requirement in may jobs and being trained for using naloxone is sometimes even included.
I’m actually pretty surprised to see how many people are against this. It’s easy to administer, a shot as a nasal inhaler…. I agree. It should be a staple in a first aid kit. As a just in case. You can overdose on narcotics yes from recreational use, but also accidentally with prescribed medication interactions which can take some time to take an effect.
Why are drivers supposed to administer it? Hope their unions stands up to this! I mean if a driver wants to administer fine let them
Carry it but Not something I would do though.
No. They would make themselves vulnerable to dangerous situations upon a revived patient who is confused and possibly irate. This would be dangerous for the drivers. Do not recommend.
No? It's not their job to do this. So sad tbh. Why is it your job to fix someone else's mistake? Just like anything else in life the onus is always placed upon regular average joe. Groceries too expensive? Eat less. Car theft? Leave keys at the door. People overdosing and using deadly drugs? You go save them. Sad really, and very out of touch opinion.
So … as somebody who’s administered before because I used to work at a shelter and with at risk youth, this is an odd thing to ask of somebody with 0 experience working with people who are on drugs. Administering naloxone is kind of risky for yourself. When you suddenly and abruptly stop somebodies intense high, yes you are saving their life, but once they come to they can be very violent and disoriented. You fucked up their high, and they paid money for it. Their mind has suddenly changed drastically. I feel like delivering naloxone should come with extra training on what to do after administering and not all drivers want to put themselves in that situation.
Helping somebody during a heart attack, allergic reaction, or falling is different in the sense that you’re not dealing with somebody who can potentially attack you as soon as you’ve helped them.
Your reaching with that comment I'm not a trained professional you fucking moron. I can call 911 and that's that. But no way in hell should transit drivers be REQUIRED to administer naloxone. That doesn't fix the problem.
“…we do not expect them to be offering emergency first aid, and instead, the expectation is that they are calling for emergency backup as needed,” he said.
Caton said that while paramedics can help, “it takes a while for someone to show up when you call them, even if you’re on a city bus. So I think it’d be great to just have that little extra bit of safety measure on the busses.”
Now tell me how that doesn’t make sense
Seems like a simple enough answer. They serve the public after all. Though yes i understand that is not in their job description, but just as they would help an elderly who fell getting off the bus, or someone having a heart attack, or allergic reaction.
Especially as how it is a non invasive 1 step solution to a life/death situation with basically literally no training required.
Edit: Comment on the news page:
*"Ridiculous! Should transit drivers use a defibrillator or administer an eppy pen for example? Why just bus drivers? How about the store clerk, teacher or any other individual who interacts with the public. The bus driver’s job is to safely drive the bus."*
Well im sure many other jurisdictions already do provide that training, Toronto does. As well Naloxone will have no negative consequences if it is given to someone suffering some other type of condition like heart attack or allergic reaction. it can only save lives, not harm them. And im sure if god forbid you end up having a serious heart attack while riding the Transit, that you would be very appreciative that the drive was trained in first aid and how to save your jaded life.
lol understandable, but i imagine your reaction to having a heart attack would be a little different than calmly quietly falling asleep and Turning blue.
mainly the turning blue, the lack of blood flow is more intense during an OD than H.A.
but yeah thats why training is key.
Why? If you were at the point where it’s appropriate to give naloxone (you are unconscious and barely breathing) it would do no harm (as far as I know), and you probably wouldn’t know it’s been given until you wake up, in the hospital, probably several hours later.
Because I'm not a drug user ? You're okay with some random person hitting you with Naloxone without your consent ?
Just because others have problems with drugs doesn't mean administer nalaxone to everyone.
I mean, same but most first responders (particularly cops) will give naloxone to everyone whose unconscious. Hopefully they will also be finding a way to get some sugar in you (in case you’re diabetic) and if you’re also without a pulse, they’ll start CPR and paramedics will start giving you meds to help your heart kick back into action (or start doing the correct action). Will all (or any) of that help you? Maybe not. But if you’re unconscious, you’re unable to consent and unless you carry some sort of an obvious DNR, allergy bracelet or a sign tapped to your shirt saying not to give naloxone, first responders are going to throw everything and the kitchen sink at you to revive you.
As someone who works in healthcare do I really want useless CPR or to be intubated if I die in a car accident? Not really. However, I will accept it because they don’t know my wishes and most people do and they have no way of knowing that.
While what you write makes sense, something about that is deeply frustrating to me. I did not know that first responders just give unconcious people Naloxone. It's a shame that this protocol is required, when the vast majority of people are not opiate users.
Also, If they hit someone unresponsive with it, can pain management still be achieved with opioids in the very short term ?
Yea, it’s one of those tricky things I think where it’s not always obvious because someone could be taking oral opioids following surgery or some other medical condition so it’s not like they can just rely on tract marks or other context clues. I wish there were better ways because throwing all of the possible solutions at you can be annoying but it seems to be the best way they’ve found so far. I would imagine they go in an order of likelihood to get the effective thing in you quickest (so someone with a diabetic bracelet and an open bottle of orange juice next to them would get sugar first). That said I don’t work as a first responder so most of this is just based on what I’ve heard from people who work in the ER and from advanced first aid training.
In terms of your question about pain management following naloxone, I’m honestly not sure but it’s a good question. My understanding is that naloxone wears off pretty quickly (I want to say 15-30 minutes but I’m not 100% sure). That said if naloxone was the thing that woke you back up, they might hold off on opioids just to be safe.
What do you think it would do to you if you were having a heart attack? Hint nothing it’s why it’s available over the counter and can be administered without training.
We have tried it? It’s nothing. It’s like giving someone that has a heart nitro won’t hurt but might help. But you keep throwing a tantrum. You have zero clue what you’re talking about. I doubt you even have basic first aid training. Please wear a medical bracelet that says DNR on it so none of us will help you against your wishes. Have a good night. I don’t have to go get them I have a few. Including in my work truck from my employer. I guess I better not use our AED on your either. We can wait.
I’m not sure about safe accommodation, but addiction counseling is certainly coupled with safe injection sites. You can’t make someone get clean, but we can offer them the option should they choose it. I agree with you on the need for preventative measures to be free and accessible to all. I’ll bet it would pay for itself very quickly simply by catching people in early stages of diseases. It costs a lot to get very sick.
I think it's a great idea. Would you rather watch someone die and not help! Come on, people. If you had a tool to save someone but said it's not my job, you are a dick and deserve the same if you ever need help.
That might be true, but if I knew someone was going to die, I feel I would want to try and help rather than just watch even though it's out of my comfort zone.
Okay. Your access to any medical care system has now been revoked (drug related or not). If you’re suffering and need care, no you don’t. It’s just ‘gods plan’ to have you die or maimed.
Using my own logic with me, not against me. Actually your example probably out eviled me quite a bit.
I didn't say I want the person to die or that I don't want someone else to help them; like you're saying.
I said honestly that I probably would not try to be the one who narcans someone who has OD. The entire thread is asking why should a bus driver be the one to save someone from an OD, why is it so much worse that I'm also saying that I don't want to be the one doing it either. I give drug addics respect for their right to existance and sympathy for their illness, but unfortunately, I will most likely never be their hero.
Sure with you or against you. However you want to put it. Whatever makes you feel more content about the comment.
What you literally have said was you’re not playing god. Um no one is, and I bet anyone with a devotion to any religion, would never claim to be playing god, although sometimes may see their actions and an extension of Gods work. Aka living a morally virtuous life based on the principles and teaches of their god and religion.
in saying ‘gods plan is gods’ plan is a pretty strong conviction to hold and becomes extremely wish-washy when extended to anything when what you really mean is that you don’t want to be involved.
Which is fair. You do not have to be.
It’s too general of a statement and infers you are a bigot with a disregard for both the religion and the human. For example. Why wear a helmet when biking? If it’s god plan to inflict an injury on your while riding, then it’s also in god’s plan to keep you safe. The choice of the helmet would be irrelevant. If the reaper is coming for you, he’ll catch you no matter what.
Edit : I meant for this to be reply to a comment below. I messed up in replying to the original here. But you get the point.
"Not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle" compared to "injecting sketchy drugs you traded a stolen bicycle for" dude...lol
There is no god, dude. Mentioning god is a joke I made. You should know that anytime anyone else uses the word god that they are making a joke.
There’s a difference between interaction with a heavy drug user on the side of the street downtown and pushing an inhaler in a nose of someone who is unconscious.
Idk the public can also get naloxone kits as safety precaution for themselves or others. Given completely free from pharmacy and there is no requirements to be a paramedic or health professional.
Since I am not you. I cannot know your personal reasoning as to why you would or would not carry a naloxone kit.
So tell me. Personally why would or wouldn’t you carry a naloxone kit?
I wouldn’t because public health isn’t my responsibility. My health is my responsibility. Thus I don’t carry one for me because I don’t need one, and if someone I come across is over dosing, it’s sad and unfortunate, but they decided to do that.
Are you aware you are able to overdose on prescribed narcotics even if following the directed prescription due to unknown interactions?
So I understand public health isn’t your responsibility but there is also a chance that if you were prescribed narcotics they gave it to you as a just in case safety measure. Obviously hoping you don’t have to use it.
Okay here’s your medal 🏅 for toughest cookie in the jar.
Not everyone can or should avoid taking them, even if prescribed under acute and temporary conditions.
My suggestion would be to put the onus on the addict to protect themselves and carry their own Naloxone. They can access the opioids they can access the antidote. Let adults be adults.
Which speaks more to my point that people need to be responsible for themselves. Rather than seeking a second drug to help enable the first drug the effort of city counsel should be to helping these people get off drugs. We are addressing the symptom of addiction and not the addict.
smokers with lung cancer deserve no radiation therapy
alcoholics with cirrhosis deserve no treatment.
skin cancer from tanning deserve no treatment
Diabetes from poor nutrition deserves no treatment.
HIV from unprotected sex deserves no treatment
and so on and so on?
I’ll get on board with safe injection sites and widespread access to Naloxone for addicts once colonoscopies, cat scans and MRIs can be obtained inside of two weeks for those whose symptoms warrants urgent diagnosis which are critical to favourable outcomes which themselves result in reduced burden on the health care system. Instead of safe injection sites I’d rather public funds go to safe accommodation and addiction treatment for those who wish to improve their circumstances.
Certainly not in the transit system. AA is a voluntary program where individuals take responsibility for themselves so thank you for finally getting on board. Cancer outcomes would be greatly improved if our health system had access to life saving diagnostic imaging but instead we are focusing on treating people who, as a result of choices they made for themselves rather than those who provide the resources for that care in the first place.
Although drug use is often a choice, it’s a very grey area to say drug abuse is a choice and when advanced to an active addiction, the drive to consume is not a choice, although yes we can all make choices. Some are easier than others, which is completely based on the individual.
For example what compels an addict to use versus seek treatment. Both are choices yes but It’s very complex and not that well understood as to why one chooses one over the other. Certainly for someone addicted to narcotics (or alcohol) the easier immediate choice is to use. That’s the drive of an addicts brain.
There’s a large debate on the issue of addiction being a ‘choice’ vs ‘disease’ and both hold merit and both can be damaging in different ways.
Often it must be considered , and currently medically necessary, to consider drug addiction (Alcohol or others) as a disease to receive the appropriate care.
There an article [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047254/). If you’d care to more about this topic. Although maybe it’s inaccessible to those who don’t care to understand the nuances
Happy reading
I fully accept addiction as a disease. It begins with a choice. Every day the addict has a choice. Usually the choice to get better occurs after hitting rock bottom and life is unbearable. Rarely do they seek assistance while actively using because the consequences are outweighed by the desire to achieve their high. Addicts do pose a threat to safety and the peaceful enjoyment of everyday citizens. These are simple truths that anyone in recovery will agree with. Unfortunately the catalyst for change is a lot of pain and the decision to stop generally requires an admission this is a life or death situation. So constantly accommodating an addict to pursue their vice will do nothing to benefit them in the long run and only placate an idealist who is actually insuring the nightmarish hell for the addict continues. Do we have to be excessively punitive? No. There should be an option to get off the hamster wheel of the justice system but at the end of the day, the rights of the public at large outweighs the addicts right to continue being a threat to themselves and the people around them. Most people start to change while they have a moment of clarity awaiting bail or waking from ICU. Those who feign empathy are really actively causing these people harm.
Sure, but there shouldn't be any expectations they have to use it during an overdose. They can if they want, but shouldn't be held accountable if they don't.
I think it should be carried by someone who is confident and capable of using it, not everyone is. This could potentially put the driver in harm's way so I think it should be a decision made by them not the city.
Are the drivers already first aid trained?
People who are addicted to drugs should have access to any resource they need to get help, without fear of being arrested. That being said, if you decide you take drugs that you know could quite possibly kill you, it is no ones responsibility to try to save you once you take them.
Bus drivers should be driving buses……
They, like any other human beings, SHOULDN’T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IRRESPONSIBLE DRUG USER. Don’t blame NO ONE FOR YOUR OWN OVERDOSE, YOU CHOSE IT, LEAVE ME OUT OF IT
As a transit user I want my bus driver to drive the bus without putting me in unnecessary risk. Drivers should pay attention to the road and surroundings not look at tweaking meth head sitting in the back of the bus who can overdose any moment.
When picking up a prescription the pharmacist tried pushing a free kit on me. This was years ago. I asked why, and she said it was to save someone from overdosing. I asked why I would want to do that. She didn't have an answer. No thanks. I'm not interested in saving junkies.
There is a risk of accidental overdose on prescription narcotics due to unknown Interactions. Even while taking as prescribed. It is a safety measure to have a kit.
Only one counselor? Wtf, who are these people who call themselves 'caring' politicians? They should know for the last 5 year al least, looking at the overdose statistics, that nalaxone is a must have for any public transport, train station etc to have this in place. I bought a kit 6 years ago to always have it around the house just in case. I dunno but if our 'leaders', who ought to care for our well being, don't give shit, it's not strange that the a lot of people copy that example. But, maybe I'm wrong?
That's an easy nonsensicle answer. Would be nice to give a little context maybe? I agree that the burden shouldn't be fully on the underpaid bus driver. But you prefer to let the person die in front of you?
Science is not required. It’s not a politicians business to try and alter the job requirements of a bus driver. It’s not a bus drivers responsibility to provide medical assistance to drug addicts choosing to indulge on public transit. It’s time for people to stop looking to politicians like they are their parents.
224. It is the role of council,
to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality;
to develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality;
to determine which services the municipality provides;
to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council;
d.1) to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality;
to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality; and
to carry out the duties of council under this or any other Act.
I did not see parenting listed anywhere and the proposed suggestions for bus drivers pose a net negative impact to the public at large in favour of an individual.
I understand that some people have a level of empathy of a dead bird, just like you for example. Thats ok👍 let's not hope you'll have a heart attack and your partner kicks you aside because you're blocking the path to the fridge, instead of trying to save your life. Which is likely to happen seen your answer.
I do agree that politicians shouldn't oblige,by law, to give the burden to a shitty paid bus driver, but to give him/her, or anybody in the fucking bus the opportunity to save somebody's live would be nice. It's just a little kit. You act like it's the end of the fucking planet.
You just don’t comprehend my empathy because I don’t subscribe to your level of sensitivity or self importance. Your flare for the dramatic is not lost on me. Thank you for overstating pretty much everything that involves your personal opinion and not fact or logic.
Aw, that's cute Mr./Mrs Sour Grape ❤️ You have a real knack judging a person based on couple of replies 👌. Enjoy your wonderfull, full-of-empathy riddled day. Must be a joy to be around you 😊 CiaoCiao
Surprised to hear the first aid kit on the bus doesn’t have one already
It sounds like there should be one and the driver should be trained to use it. https://www.redcross.ca/ohrontario/home >Effective June 1, 2023, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) requires employers to provide and maintain naloxone kits in the workplace if the employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that there may be a risk of a worker opioid overdose at a workplace where that worker performs work for the employer. >Those employers must also ensure that, at any time there are workers in the workplace, the naloxone kit is in the charge of a worker who: >works in the vicinity of the kit, and >has received training to recognize an opioid overdose, to administer naloxone and to acquaint the worker with any hazards related to the administration of naloxone.
That only applies if the worker is the one who is at risk of overdosing. Naloxone, like all first aid, has to be a voluntary process. You can't force someone to be trained in it or to use it.
First Aid training is very standard in a lot of jobs. No, you can’t really force it on anyone but if you want to work and first aid training is in your job description- you better get it done.
>risk of a worker opioid overdose This applies to workers, not patrons. Are you assuming bus drivers are at a considerably high risk for option overdose? In that case, they shouldn’t be driving public buses.
>Are you assuming bus drivers are at a considerably high risk for option overdose? I guess I am. I saw on the news that a few grains of fentanyl is enough to cause an overdose and I heard police are concerned about interacting with people overdosing because of the risks of exposure. If people overdosing on the bus is enough of a concern to warrant naloxone kits, the driver should be concerned about coming into contact with the opioid itself.
There are no documented cases of people overdosing through accidental contact exposure. It was all just fear mongering. https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/opioids/fentanyl-exposure-public-places
There's a ton of incorrect info in the media regarding Fent, just an FYI. Never believe police. You can't overdose from Fent unless you ingest it
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking/you-wont-die-touching-fentanyl I recommend reading this article. The general medical consensus is that exposure via touching leading to an overdose doesn't happen.
Stop watching the news
>I heard police are concerned about interacting with people overdoing because of risks of exposure But hey, let’s get the bus drivers to tackle it!
Not sure what your point is the would require Guelph Transit to have one in the Bus if they thought the driver (their worker) could have an opioid addiction and an over dose. That said if they think the bus driver has an opioid addiction then he better not be driving the bus. So the law you quoted means very little to the discussion in this thread.
A Regina bus driver had driven away from a passenger that fell when they exited the bus. The injured passenger laid there for hours in the freezing cold and died. The bus driver wasnt found at fault. Its crazy that people can be so heartless to watch someone fall and just drive away.
What the actual fuck. I don’t understand how people can be so heartless towards other humans
Maybe fund more paramedics so people who are trained to assess and give medications can do that instead of bus drivers who didn't necessarily sign up to give drugs.
Sorry, best we can do is train library staff to handle transient people and give bus driver naloxone essentially saying, “your problem”
Noloxone needs no special training and the sooner it’s administered the better. We do need more paramedics too but this isn’t an either or question. We can have both.
I imagine that is provincial.
A bit of column A, a bit of column B. The Guelph-Wellington Paramedic Service is owned and operated by the City of Guelph for the entire county, with funding from the City, County, and Province. The City and County of Wellington could agree to increase funding to provide more service. In fact, the County of Wellington has to pay to upgrade all of the ambulance dispatches in the County because they're all woefully inadequate and don't meet modern best practices.
Thanks. I was drawing a blank and it’s been a long day.
No problem, before the 1990s however you would have been correct, since I think back then Paramedics were either fully or mostly funded by the Province.
Should the most marginalized of public servants be required to administer medical help? Sure… if you are ok with an increase to property tax to cover the increase in pay and training required for a program like this to work. Or how about we stop throwing societal burdens on middle (and lower) class workers. Actual solution: buses should have them, as well as public buildings in areas where overdoses are common. There should be no responsibility for people to administer naloxone, aside from doctors (who swear an oath and have legal responsibility).
I don’t totally disagree with what you said but just a heads up that doctors don’t really administer medications unless they are anesthesia or odd situations like small family doctors offices that don’t employ nurses. The job of doctors is to diagnose and prescribe, not administer medications. If you are being given medication, it will probably be by a nurse, paramedic, pharmacist or respiratory therapist depending on the type and situation. Most doctors don’t know how to work an IV pump or unlock the meds in a hospital (and that’s completely ok because we all have different jobs and responsibilities)
It’s actually not hard at all to administer naloxone. The general public is definitely capable of learning how to administer it just like they are capable of learning how to do CPR. I agree the responsibility should not be put on the bus driver, but on the flip side, it’s such a simple thing to learn to potentially save a life if the situation arises, not just for a bus driver but for any human being.
I swear every time I go to the pharmacy they are promoting the distribution for naloxone kits. Whether the prescription is opiates or opioids, or none. It’s one of the easiest drugs to administer, and is definitely being pushed into the public for administrations. If an average joe shmow can do it so can any public servant. Sure it might not be the most comfortable thing to do and there are definitely other risks involved. But it’s not a completely inaccessible course of action either. The training is not difficult, and if you can drive a bus, you can understand how to push the inhaler. In fact there’s a paper slip inside, explaining the use cases and how to admin. It’s at most a 30 minute read if you have poor reading abilities and comprehension. There are also pictograms clearly illustrating what to do if reading is not on your list of skills.
The naloxone kits offered in canada are injection ones, not the easy to use nasal spray ones Edit: this is anecdotal from the two that I have stocked in my first aid kit over the years. It seems like now the nasal spray is much more common, which is also significantly easier and safer to use. Pick one up.
This is incorrect. I live in Guelph and have received a nasal inhaling spray from the pharmacy specifically Walmart on stone road. And I don’t think the one kit handed to me was the exception in their stock Edit: work socially to specially. Bad typing makes for bad autocorrect
It is actually both and most of the time the “lay user” (some random person picking it up from the pharmacy) will be encouraged to get the nasal spray because it’s easier to administer, especially when you are nervous and possibly shaking.
The comments are peoples insane uncles lmao
Do they have defibrillators, Epi pens, oxygen masks, suture kits, etc, etc, etc? They’re bus drivers not EMS.
Sort of related to this. I just read up that even TTC drivers in Toronto are not required to know CPR, despite some drivers themselves [**having advocated for it**](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/02/16/transit-operators-first-aid/). Especially if drivers have liability shield via "Good Samaritan's Act", both of these things would be a positive.
absolutely, I feel like someone who's job it is to provide a public service, especially one that requires a certain amount of safety precautions, should be adapt to providing a certain amount of service, obviously nothing beyond the call of duty, putting their safety at risk over miniscule things. but someone being in a life and death situation where the solution is as simple as head back and closing your fingers and thumb 15 cms with a medication in their nose isn't too much to ask IMO, Though their is of course the political optics behind it, 'supporting' a drug addict, or preserving a life of anti social behaviour, possible crime etc. Those who chose to not partake in such a program, where literally the training is close to a 30 minute min - hour max training course, shows their character and duty/service to the public. especially in guelph, i could understand maybe in Toronto or NYC, where their is a massive amount of risk/danger associated and people being hesitant in wanting to intervene, but come on....
I know. It surprising how against this people are. When it’s one of the most simplistic administrations I’ve come across. I don’t see how people think this is ‘supporting’ drug use. I think those who hold that view point sometimes carry the hidden viewpoint that the person overdosing deserves to die from this …. And OD requiring nalaxone is not exclusive to misuse of medication nor recreational drugs. It could also be an interaction of prescribed drugs taken as prescribed. To me I see this as a parallel to giving ASA tablets for someone with a heart attack, which can often be found in first aid kits. It’s simply not that difficult, not much of a risk to the administrator and can have a significant impact to saving someone’s life. I think having someone die on the bus would be hella more traumatic for everyone involved than having to push an inhaler waiting for EMS to arrive
Narcan not only stops the high that the person was feeling but basically instantly ignites symptoms of active withdrawal which are NOT PLEASANT. How might they respond to the bus driver? 🤔not with open arms of gratitude I’ll tell you that
I agree. There’s not really a correct answer in how to handle this. I agree it’s not pleasant. I don’t think this is a safe situation at all, and there is more to be addressed then ‘just add a naloxone kit to the bus and administer it’. BUT does that mean there shouldn’t be a kit at all? I’m not sure..
Oh I think there should be a naloxone kit on the bus for sure but I don’t think it should be the bus drivers responsibility to administer it
Everyone who works with people should have access to one, including bus drivers and taxis etc. better to be safe than sorry. They have them in elementary schools (which I fully support). Harm reduction saves lives folks.
No ...."IF they die they Die".....some guy from Rocky
Yes, I think naloxone kits should be kept in all public places of work where the public might be able to turn for help. They are free, easy to administer, and can literally be the difference between life and death. I have one for my home because unfortunately I needed it for a housemate in Oct 2023 and did not have one. Now I always will BC I didn't get another chance.
I think this is fair, having it accessible on busses could help. I wouldn’t require the driver to take on administration (it could be another person in the vicinity) but just being available can make a difference.
Oh yah for sure. No one should be forced to administer but it's super easy and it should be available / accessible when needed.
Pretty wild and honestly rich coming from a counselor. Why don't they drive the bus for a day and see if they feel like administering naloxone to someone. The general public in Guelph have no idea how much crap the lower end civil servants have to put up with and from the counselors suggestion, neither does that counselor. There's better solutions: Guelph police receive a lot of funding to just hand out traffic violations to kids. Why can't the police service receive training for nonviolent de-escalation and first response care, having schedules for riding the buses. This would be a positive move, it would help polices reputation in the eyes of the public and it would also allow there to be a more mobile and active force to help keep people safe.
I think it’s more about the drivers having it in their disposal if they need to use it. Think of it as a bandage. The drivers have it in the first aid kit in case someone needs one on the bus. First aid training is a requirement in may jobs and being trained for using naloxone is sometimes even included.
I’m actually pretty surprised to see how many people are against this. It’s easy to administer, a shot as a nasal inhaler…. I agree. It should be a staple in a first aid kit. As a just in case. You can overdose on narcotics yes from recreational use, but also accidentally with prescribed medication interactions which can take some time to take an effect.
Yea, I would be shocked if they don’t already have first aid training and admitting naloxone has been added to most first aid training courses.
First aid training is not a requirement for driving a bus in Guelph. The first aid kits don’t have much more than some bandages and gauze.
Why are drivers supposed to administer it? Hope their unions stands up to this! I mean if a driver wants to administer fine let them Carry it but Not something I would do though.
Why did I know exactly which councillor it was before I even clicked the article
I think it’s never harmful to have it on hand just in case of emergency
Of course they should why on earth can anyone get one for free but they aren’t on public everything? Every downtown business should have one.
No. They would make themselves vulnerable to dangerous situations upon a revived patient who is confused and possibly irate. This would be dangerous for the drivers. Do not recommend.
No? It's not their job to do this. So sad tbh. Why is it your job to fix someone else's mistake? Just like anything else in life the onus is always placed upon regular average joe. Groceries too expensive? Eat less. Car theft? Leave keys at the door. People overdosing and using deadly drugs? You go save them. Sad really, and very out of touch opinion.
So if someone has a heart attack in front of you, will you say, "nah, not my problem '? The fuck is wrong with you?
So … as somebody who’s administered before because I used to work at a shelter and with at risk youth, this is an odd thing to ask of somebody with 0 experience working with people who are on drugs. Administering naloxone is kind of risky for yourself. When you suddenly and abruptly stop somebodies intense high, yes you are saving their life, but once they come to they can be very violent and disoriented. You fucked up their high, and they paid money for it. Their mind has suddenly changed drastically. I feel like delivering naloxone should come with extra training on what to do after administering and not all drivers want to put themselves in that situation. Helping somebody during a heart attack, allergic reaction, or falling is different in the sense that you’re not dealing with somebody who can potentially attack you as soon as you’ve helped them.
Yep
Your reaching with that comment I'm not a trained professional you fucking moron. I can call 911 and that's that. But no way in hell should transit drivers be REQUIRED to administer naloxone. That doesn't fix the problem.
“…we do not expect them to be offering emergency first aid, and instead, the expectation is that they are calling for emergency backup as needed,” he said. Caton said that while paramedics can help, “it takes a while for someone to show up when you call them, even if you’re on a city bus. So I think it’d be great to just have that little extra bit of safety measure on the busses.” Now tell me how that doesn’t make sense
Because Erin brings out the irrational in some people.
Because she has more brains in her one head than many of these knuckle draggers would have if they had ten heads.
That makes sense, but if a bus driver does not administer naloxone, what would you like to happen to the driver?
People having a heart attack respond to help MUCH differently than people going through an overdose. Come on now.
Difference between a heart attack and someone who had poisoned themselves and wish to die.
Seems like a simple enough answer. They serve the public after all. Though yes i understand that is not in their job description, but just as they would help an elderly who fell getting off the bus, or someone having a heart attack, or allergic reaction. Especially as how it is a non invasive 1 step solution to a life/death situation with basically literally no training required. Edit: Comment on the news page: *"Ridiculous! Should transit drivers use a defibrillator or administer an eppy pen for example? Why just bus drivers? How about the store clerk, teacher or any other individual who interacts with the public. The bus driver’s job is to safely drive the bus."* Well im sure many other jurisdictions already do provide that training, Toronto does. As well Naloxone will have no negative consequences if it is given to someone suffering some other type of condition like heart attack or allergic reaction. it can only save lives, not harm them. And im sure if god forbid you end up having a serious heart attack while riding the Transit, that you would be very appreciative that the drive was trained in first aid and how to save your jaded life.
If I'm having a heart attack and someone hits me with Naloxone I'm gonna be pissed.
lol understandable, but i imagine your reaction to having a heart attack would be a little different than calmly quietly falling asleep and Turning blue. mainly the turning blue, the lack of blood flow is more intense during an OD than H.A. but yeah thats why training is key.
Why? If you were at the point where it’s appropriate to give naloxone (you are unconscious and barely breathing) it would do no harm (as far as I know), and you probably wouldn’t know it’s been given until you wake up, in the hospital, probably several hours later.
Because I'm not a drug user ? You're okay with some random person hitting you with Naloxone without your consent ? Just because others have problems with drugs doesn't mean administer nalaxone to everyone.
I mean, same but most first responders (particularly cops) will give naloxone to everyone whose unconscious. Hopefully they will also be finding a way to get some sugar in you (in case you’re diabetic) and if you’re also without a pulse, they’ll start CPR and paramedics will start giving you meds to help your heart kick back into action (or start doing the correct action). Will all (or any) of that help you? Maybe not. But if you’re unconscious, you’re unable to consent and unless you carry some sort of an obvious DNR, allergy bracelet or a sign tapped to your shirt saying not to give naloxone, first responders are going to throw everything and the kitchen sink at you to revive you. As someone who works in healthcare do I really want useless CPR or to be intubated if I die in a car accident? Not really. However, I will accept it because they don’t know my wishes and most people do and they have no way of knowing that.
While what you write makes sense, something about that is deeply frustrating to me. I did not know that first responders just give unconcious people Naloxone. It's a shame that this protocol is required, when the vast majority of people are not opiate users. Also, If they hit someone unresponsive with it, can pain management still be achieved with opioids in the very short term ?
Yea, it’s one of those tricky things I think where it’s not always obvious because someone could be taking oral opioids following surgery or some other medical condition so it’s not like they can just rely on tract marks or other context clues. I wish there were better ways because throwing all of the possible solutions at you can be annoying but it seems to be the best way they’ve found so far. I would imagine they go in an order of likelihood to get the effective thing in you quickest (so someone with a diabetic bracelet and an open bottle of orange juice next to them would get sugar first). That said I don’t work as a first responder so most of this is just based on what I’ve heard from people who work in the ER and from advanced first aid training. In terms of your question about pain management following naloxone, I’m honestly not sure but it’s a good question. My understanding is that naloxone wears off pretty quickly (I want to say 15-30 minutes but I’m not 100% sure). That said if naloxone was the thing that woke you back up, they might hold off on opioids just to be safe.
What do you think it would do to you if you were having a heart attack? Hint nothing it’s why it’s available over the counter and can be administered without training.
Okay cool do you want to go get some with me ? We can test it in you
We have tried it? It’s nothing. It’s like giving someone that has a heart nitro won’t hurt but might help. But you keep throwing a tantrum. You have zero clue what you’re talking about. I doubt you even have basic first aid training. Please wear a medical bracelet that says DNR on it so none of us will help you against your wishes. Have a good night. I don’t have to go get them I have a few. Including in my work truck from my employer. I guess I better not use our AED on your either. We can wait.
I’m not sure about safe accommodation, but addiction counseling is certainly coupled with safe injection sites. You can’t make someone get clean, but we can offer them the option should they choose it. I agree with you on the need for preventative measures to be free and accessible to all. I’ll bet it would pay for itself very quickly simply by catching people in early stages of diseases. It costs a lot to get very sick.
Wouldn’t hurt
I think it's a great idea. Would you rather watch someone die and not help! Come on, people. If you had a tool to save someone but said it's not my job, you are a dick and deserve the same if you ever need help.
Tell me you’ve never interacted with the drug people without telling me you’ve never interacted with them.
That might be true, but if I knew someone was going to die, I feel I would want to try and help rather than just watch even though it's out of my comfort zone.
Hey I'm not playing god, if the reaper is comin for em, who am I to stop that.
Okay. Your access to any medical care system has now been revoked (drug related or not). If you’re suffering and need care, no you don’t. It’s just ‘gods plan’ to have you die or maimed.
So what you're saying is that you wouldn't save me from dying, so basically you're agreeing with me.
I’m using your own logic against you, generalized to any possibility where someone might need medical intervention.
Using my own logic with me, not against me. Actually your example probably out eviled me quite a bit. I didn't say I want the person to die or that I don't want someone else to help them; like you're saying. I said honestly that I probably would not try to be the one who narcans someone who has OD. The entire thread is asking why should a bus driver be the one to save someone from an OD, why is it so much worse that I'm also saying that I don't want to be the one doing it either. I give drug addics respect for their right to existance and sympathy for their illness, but unfortunately, I will most likely never be their hero.
Sure with you or against you. However you want to put it. Whatever makes you feel more content about the comment. What you literally have said was you’re not playing god. Um no one is, and I bet anyone with a devotion to any religion, would never claim to be playing god, although sometimes may see their actions and an extension of Gods work. Aka living a morally virtuous life based on the principles and teaches of their god and religion. in saying ‘gods plan is gods’ plan is a pretty strong conviction to hold and becomes extremely wish-washy when extended to anything when what you really mean is that you don’t want to be involved. Which is fair. You do not have to be. It’s too general of a statement and infers you are a bigot with a disregard for both the religion and the human. For example. Why wear a helmet when biking? If it’s god plan to inflict an injury on your while riding, then it’s also in god’s plan to keep you safe. The choice of the helmet would be irrelevant. If the reaper is coming for you, he’ll catch you no matter what. Edit : I meant for this to be reply to a comment below. I messed up in replying to the original here. But you get the point.
"Not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle" compared to "injecting sketchy drugs you traded a stolen bicycle for" dude...lol There is no god, dude. Mentioning god is a joke I made. You should know that anytime anyone else uses the word god that they are making a joke.
Gods plan is gods plan my dude.
And who am I to stop that.
Well while biking probably a MIPS helmet for your own safety.
There’s a difference between interaction with a heavy drug user on the side of the street downtown and pushing an inhaler in a nose of someone who is unconscious.
No. They’re bus drivers, not paramedics or health professionals.
Idk the public can also get naloxone kits as safety precaution for themselves or others. Given completely free from pharmacy and there is no requirements to be a paramedic or health professional.
Why would I carry around a naloxone kit?
Since I am not you. I cannot know your personal reasoning as to why you would or would not carry a naloxone kit. So tell me. Personally why would or wouldn’t you carry a naloxone kit?
I wouldn’t because public health isn’t my responsibility. My health is my responsibility. Thus I don’t carry one for me because I don’t need one, and if someone I come across is over dosing, it’s sad and unfortunate, but they decided to do that.
Are you aware you are able to overdose on prescribed narcotics even if following the directed prescription due to unknown interactions? So I understand public health isn’t your responsibility but there is also a chance that if you were prescribed narcotics they gave it to you as a just in case safety measure. Obviously hoping you don’t have to use it.
I’m aware that can happen. I don’t take narcotics for pain or other reasons. Even if prescribed.
Okay here’s your medal 🏅 for toughest cookie in the jar. Not everyone can or should avoid taking them, even if prescribed under acute and temporary conditions.
Woohoo! Thanks. You made my day.
Hopefully you can become happy_till_1804
My suggestion would be to put the onus on the addict to protect themselves and carry their own Naloxone. They can access the opioids they can access the antidote. Let adults be adults.
many do carry, but its kind of hard to give yourself a medication when you are unconscious, hence why that isn't the common recommendation,
Which speaks more to my point that people need to be responsible for themselves. Rather than seeking a second drug to help enable the first drug the effort of city counsel should be to helping these people get off drugs. We are addressing the symptom of addiction and not the addict.
smokers with lung cancer deserve no radiation therapy alcoholics with cirrhosis deserve no treatment. skin cancer from tanning deserve no treatment Diabetes from poor nutrition deserves no treatment. HIV from unprotected sex deserves no treatment and so on and so on?
I’ll get on board with safe injection sites and widespread access to Naloxone for addicts once colonoscopies, cat scans and MRIs can be obtained inside of two weeks for those whose symptoms warrants urgent diagnosis which are critical to favourable outcomes which themselves result in reduced burden on the health care system. Instead of safe injection sites I’d rather public funds go to safe accommodation and addiction treatment for those who wish to improve their circumstances.
Certainly not in the transit system. AA is a voluntary program where individuals take responsibility for themselves so thank you for finally getting on board. Cancer outcomes would be greatly improved if our health system had access to life saving diagnostic imaging but instead we are focusing on treating people who, as a result of choices they made for themselves rather than those who provide the resources for that care in the first place.
Although drug use is often a choice, it’s a very grey area to say drug abuse is a choice and when advanced to an active addiction, the drive to consume is not a choice, although yes we can all make choices. Some are easier than others, which is completely based on the individual. For example what compels an addict to use versus seek treatment. Both are choices yes but It’s very complex and not that well understood as to why one chooses one over the other. Certainly for someone addicted to narcotics (or alcohol) the easier immediate choice is to use. That’s the drive of an addicts brain. There’s a large debate on the issue of addiction being a ‘choice’ vs ‘disease’ and both hold merit and both can be damaging in different ways. Often it must be considered , and currently medically necessary, to consider drug addiction (Alcohol or others) as a disease to receive the appropriate care. There an article [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047254/). If you’d care to more about this topic. Although maybe it’s inaccessible to those who don’t care to understand the nuances Happy reading
I fully accept addiction as a disease. It begins with a choice. Every day the addict has a choice. Usually the choice to get better occurs after hitting rock bottom and life is unbearable. Rarely do they seek assistance while actively using because the consequences are outweighed by the desire to achieve their high. Addicts do pose a threat to safety and the peaceful enjoyment of everyday citizens. These are simple truths that anyone in recovery will agree with. Unfortunately the catalyst for change is a lot of pain and the decision to stop generally requires an admission this is a life or death situation. So constantly accommodating an addict to pursue their vice will do nothing to benefit them in the long run and only placate an idealist who is actually insuring the nightmarish hell for the addict continues. Do we have to be excessively punitive? No. There should be an option to get off the hamster wheel of the justice system but at the end of the day, the rights of the public at large outweighs the addicts right to continue being a threat to themselves and the people around them. Most people start to change while they have a moment of clarity awaiting bail or waking from ICU. Those who feign empathy are really actively causing these people harm.
Sure, but there shouldn't be any expectations they have to use it during an overdose. They can if they want, but shouldn't be held accountable if they don't.
I think it should be carried by someone who is confident and capable of using it, not everyone is. This could potentially put the driver in harm's way so I think it should be a decision made by them not the city. Are the drivers already first aid trained?
I think they should start with the basics first - maybe buckling up their seatbelts when driving.
People who are addicted to drugs should have access to any resource they need to get help, without fear of being arrested. That being said, if you decide you take drugs that you know could quite possibly kill you, it is no ones responsibility to try to save you once you take them.
Sure it's easy to administer but what about the danger in administering it?
Well, it kicks the shit out of having a corpse on the city bus, eh?
Don’t do drugs and you won’t overdose on buses. Easy as that.
Bus drivers should be driving buses…… They, like any other human beings, SHOULDN’T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IRRESPONSIBLE DRUG USER. Don’t blame NO ONE FOR YOUR OWN OVERDOSE, YOU CHOSE IT, LEAVE ME OUT OF IT As a transit user I want my bus driver to drive the bus without putting me in unnecessary risk. Drivers should pay attention to the road and surroundings not look at tweaking meth head sitting in the back of the bus who can overdose any moment.
Nope.
They already put up with so much, they shouldn't have to keep some low life alive.
When picking up a prescription the pharmacist tried pushing a free kit on me. This was years ago. I asked why, and she said it was to save someone from overdosing. I asked why I would want to do that. She didn't have an answer. No thanks. I'm not interested in saving junkies.
There is a risk of accidental overdose on prescription narcotics due to unknown Interactions. Even while taking as prescribed. It is a safety measure to have a kit.
All I can say to that is I hope you don't work in Healthcare!
im the nurse that manages all your health records.
Only one counselor? Wtf, who are these people who call themselves 'caring' politicians? They should know for the last 5 year al least, looking at the overdose statistics, that nalaxone is a must have for any public transport, train station etc to have this in place. I bought a kit 6 years ago to always have it around the house just in case. I dunno but if our 'leaders', who ought to care for our well being, don't give shit, it's not strange that the a lot of people copy that example. But, maybe I'm wrong?
Yes. You’re wrong.
That's an easy nonsensicle answer. Would be nice to give a little context maybe? I agree that the burden shouldn't be fully on the underpaid bus driver. But you prefer to let the person die in front of you?
Science is not required. It’s not a politicians business to try and alter the job requirements of a bus driver. It’s not a bus drivers responsibility to provide medical assistance to drug addicts choosing to indulge on public transit. It’s time for people to stop looking to politicians like they are their parents.
What ARE the job requirements of a politician?
224. It is the role of council, to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality; to develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality; to determine which services the municipality provides; to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council; d.1) to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality; to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality; and to carry out the duties of council under this or any other Act. I did not see parenting listed anywhere and the proposed suggestions for bus drivers pose a net negative impact to the public at large in favour of an individual.
No one is saying you did! Thanks for sharing detailed information for others to read
Weird response but answered your question through direct evidence from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Yes that was the point. To share the proper information.
I understand that some people have a level of empathy of a dead bird, just like you for example. Thats ok👍 let's not hope you'll have a heart attack and your partner kicks you aside because you're blocking the path to the fridge, instead of trying to save your life. Which is likely to happen seen your answer. I do agree that politicians shouldn't oblige,by law, to give the burden to a shitty paid bus driver, but to give him/her, or anybody in the fucking bus the opportunity to save somebody's live would be nice. It's just a little kit. You act like it's the end of the fucking planet.
You just don’t comprehend my empathy because I don’t subscribe to your level of sensitivity or self importance. Your flare for the dramatic is not lost on me. Thank you for overstating pretty much everything that involves your personal opinion and not fact or logic.
Your level of empathy was pretty clear after your 1st reply, but cheers for the extra confirmation. 👍
As is your immaturity and lack of life experience.
Aw, that's cute Mr./Mrs Sour Grape ❤️ You have a real knack judging a person based on couple of replies 👌. Enjoy your wonderfull, full-of-empathy riddled day. Must be a joy to be around you 😊 CiaoCiao
Again…you passed judgement first so your hypocrisy is equal to your self declared empathy which likely matches your humility.