Search

ABSTRACT Aims Decisions on whether and how to 'schedule' drugs (i.e. to determine their legal status and penalties to be applied for sale or possession) are often heavily criticized. We sought to assess more comprehensively the results of such decisions for newly emerging drugs. Methods Through analysis of legislation and secondary sources, we identified 63 substances that have emerged since 1971, including all that have been added to the most restrictive schedule by the United Nations, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and/or New Zealand. Measurements For each jurisdiction we recorded whether, when, and how the substance was scheduled and note what decisions engendered substantial criticism or controversy within the international treaties' framework of balancing medical benefits with risk of abuse. Findings (i) The rate of emergence of new drugs has been fairly steady. (ii) There is broad cross-national agreement on what should be scheduled. (iii) The United States often acts first. (iv) Temporary bans that delay final decisions by 12-18 months can sometimes allow final decisions to be grounded on a substantially expanded research base. (v) It appears that no more than seven of the decisions reached by the United States with respect to the 63 substances are candidates for being considered errors, and arguably the United States has committed at most one serious Type I and one serious Type II error. Results for other countries are broadly similar. Conclusions The process for determining the legal status of new psychoactive substances appears to function reasonably well, within the framework of international treaty obligations. Most criticisms relate to one or a few substances (e.g. 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) and/or complaints that the decisions discount benefits that are not recognized by the treaties (e.g. recreational or religious use). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Falling consent rates for postmortems, regardless of age of death, have been widely reported in recent years. The aim of this study was to explore parental attitudes to, and decision-making about, a perinatal postmortem after termination for fetal abnormality, late miscarriage, or stillbirth. Methods: A prospective self-completion questionnaire was given to 35 women and their partners. The participants had experienced second or third trimester pregnancy loss in a single fetal medicine and delivery unit in the United Kingdom and were making decisions about having a postmortem. They were asked to complete a questionnaire about their attitudes to, and expectations of, a perinatal postmortem. Results: Thirty-one questionnaires were received from parents of 17 babies (49% of those asked; 16 from mothers, 15 from fathers). Parents of nine babies (53%) said they would agree to a full postmortem, of three babies to a limited postmortem, and of four babies to an external examination only; one couple were undecided. The most important issues for the parents in this study that related to their decisions about a postmortem centered on the need for information, both for future planning and about what had happened. Moderately important issues related to altruism, which is, improving medical knowledge and helping other parents experiencing similar bereavement. Among the lowest scoring issues were potential barriers, such as concerns about cultural or religious acceptability of a postmortem, funeral delays, and what would happen to the baby's body. Conclusions: Bereaved parents who participated in this study, where postmortem consent rates were relatively high, thought that their need for knowledge eclipsed assumed barriers when deciding whether or not to have a postmortem for their baby. (BIRTH 39:1 March 2012) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]