Naloxone “Moral Hazard” Debate Pits Economists Against Physicians

      An economics research article arguing that naloxone distribution has had unintended consequences, such as increased crime because opioid users didn’t die from their overdoses, prompted an emotional response from advocates for people with opioid use disorder and criticism about research methods from physicians.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ACEP Member Login
      ACEP Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Doleac JL, Mukherjee A. The moral hazard of lifesaving innovations: naloxone access, opioid abuse, and crime. Available at: Accessed July 5, 2018.

      2. Frank RG, Humphreys K, Pollack HA. Does naloxone availability increase opioid abuse? the case for skepticism. Available at: Accessed July 5, 2018.

      3. Rees DI, Sabia JJ, Argys LM, et al. With a little help from my friends: the effects of naloxone access and Good Samaritan laws on opioid-related deaths. Available at: Accessed July 5, 2018.

        • Jones J.D.
        • Campbell A.
        • Metz V.E.
        • et al.
        No evidence of compensatory drug use risk behavior among heroin users after receiving take-home naloxone.
        Addict Behav. 2017; 71: 104-106