Heading to Rehab?

Are Grandma and Grandpa Headed to Rehab?

If they’re part of the 5% of baby boomers that never kicked their drug habits, researchers fear they might be on their way! And that raises a number of interesting issues, including whether or not society is equipped to handle an increase in older individuals seeking treatment for their addictions.

But before anyone worries about that, let’s take a closer look at the types of drugs they still do.

It appears their drugs of choice are the same ones that were favorites during the 60s, when many boomers were just beginning to experiment. Marijuana is definitely still high on many baby boomers’ lists. And plenty of the folks in this age group like to pop prescription meds, too. Some of the boomers admitted to indulging in both pot and pills while others admitted they ditched marijuana—which is illegal—and switched to prescription meds, which are perfectly legal!

Alcohol is another favorite. Fortunately very few boomers do harder drugs, things like crystal meth, cocaine, heroin and hallucinogens.


Image from an advertising campaign from Focus12, a rehabilitation clinic based in the UK.

Why all the fuss?

Baby boomers have an interesting way of making headlines in the most unusual ways. They’ve been characterized as being trend-setters and renegades. But is it feasible to think boomers will be growing pot right next to their parsley, or robbing neighborhood pharmacies so they can satisfy their oxycodone cravings?

Some might, but most won’t

The newly released government data that generated the latest buzz about baby boomers suggests that 5% still do drugs. And while that translates into about 4.3 million people aged 50 years old or older, it also means that 95% of the people included in this age group no longer do any drugs — at least not any they’re willing to admit to!


Image from an advertising campaign from Focus12, a rehabilitation clinic based in the UK.

Still, 4.3 million is one-and-a-half million more than earlier data collected between 2002 and 2006, when an analysis of data revealed about 2.8 million people over 50 admitted to using illicit drugs.

But baby boomers have lived a long time. Most of them have worked hard to get where they are. So why should anyone care what they do with their personal time, especially when there are so many other problems plaguing our world?


Image from an advertising campaign from Focus12, a rehabilitation clinic based in the UK.

Here’s why there’s concern

The possibility does exist that there may soon be more demand for addiction treatment support services than supply. But supply versus demand issues aren’t hard to resolve. The problem has more to do with what’s unknown. Specifically, there’s concern whether existing treatment programs will have the same effectiveness on an older generation. Also a concern is whether the same types of treatment programs will be effective in treating people with long-term drug addictions and those that are newly addicted.

Another concern is age. Whether they’ll admit it or not, baby boomers’ bodies aren’t like they used to be. They’ve changed, and that means drug metabolism has changed too. When older individuals abuse drugs, there’s also a higher likelihood of suicide, which requires even more treatment.

Is this latest government study enough to convince baby boomers it’s finally time they act their age?

Not likely!

Texas Ordered to Destroy Thousands of Blood Samples

Infant Blood Taken Without Consent

This sounds like the plot of a horror movie, but it actually happened in real life.
Not long ago, a group of Texas parents discovered that blood samples drawn from their infants were being stored indefinitely without their consent. They thought the blood samples were being destroyed after they were screened for various disorders and birth defects. But that wasn’t the case. Some were used for “unspecified research projects.”

So the group filed a federal lawsuit against the Texas Department of State Health Services as well as the Texas A&M University System. Federal court determined this was a violation of the plaintiffs’ 4th amendment rights against unlawful search and seizures.

When I think of unreasonable search and seizure, I think of arbitrary intrusions of homes, cars, or persons by law enforcement officers or government officials. I don’t think of hospital personnel unlawfully taking and using someone else’s blood, especially an infant’s. That’s kind of creepy.

The background

There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with collecting blood samples from newborn babies. The state of Texas has done this for decades. Most parents appreciate the comfort that comes from knowing the results of early screening of their newborn babies’ DNA.

But what some parents didn’t appreciate was finding out that stored infant blood could be used without their knowledge or consent for research. What’s worse, they were concerned that personal information associated with the blood samples could be misused.

As a parent, I don’t think I’d be comfortable knowing my baby’s blood was sitting on a shelf somewhere, accessible to anybody with the right credentials.


Millions will be destroyed

Only 5 plaintiffs were involved in the lawsuit. However, over 5 million blood samples will be destroyed. That might seem like a waste of valuable research material, especially when the blood may have played a role in the discovery of some new disease or treatment. But if the blood samples shouldn’t have been there in the first place, destroying them really can’t be considered a waste.

Whether or not the millions of blood samples should have been there is the heart of the lawsuit. Stricter laws were passed recently giving parents a choice of opting out of the blood storage situation. The laws also strengthened patient privacy rights. But the parents that gave birth prior to the law’s passage didn’t have any of these rights.

That’s why millions of blood samples obtained and stored prior to the implementation of these new laws were also ordered destroyed.

Who’s right?

Obviously in this case, the federal government felt there was a clear-cut violation of constitutional rights. And I tend to agree with that.

But what about the people who could have benefitted from medical advancements that might have been discovered had that blood samples been made available for study? Do they have any rights?

I don’t know the answer. But I do know that if anyone wants my blood or my child’s, they’ll have to ask me for it. That way I can decide its fate.

What do you think?