The State Duma is developing a bill obliging to undergo medical examination and treatment of alcoholics who have committed certain administrative or criminal offenses.
The bill obliging to undergo medical examination and treatment of alcoholic patients who have committed offenses is undoubtedly and for a long time necessary. But it's not for nothing that they say that it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines. Let's talk about these ravines.
The fact that not all people with alcohol addiction want to be treated can be understood. By registering with a narcologist, they are automatically deprived of the right to drive vehicles and to acquire (own) firearms (traumatic) weapons. And we have more and more such lovers, look at the roads even outside rush hours.
To be treated anonymously? Please, no one will even know about you. But then there can be no question of either your examination (you are not in the database, you are a certain "Ivan Petrovich" under number 666, period), or of compulsory treatment. Who should be examined and who should be sent for compulsion?
If you have committed an offense (this is discussed in the law, which immediately reduces the number of alcoholics by five hundred times, if not more), then your full name. are known and you have a referral to a narcologist with a recommendation to “undergo treatment”. After sober up and putting on a clean shirt, you go to the doctor the next day or a week later.
Option number 1: a referral from the police. Talk to the doctor and even tell him everything sincerely. He offers (!) You treatment, and you politely thank him and, crossing yourself, swear: “I will quit drinking myself!”… And that's all. The doctor wishes you good health, because he has no right to treat a person without his written "informed consent" (!), even for angina or gonorrhea. If you agree to treatment, why is there any additional law needed?
Вариант №2: вы приходите к врачу-наркологу с Постановлением суда об обязательном лечении. Здесь и говорить не о чем. Уже и сегодня ясно, что нужно делать: пациент, вздыхая, подписывает согласие на лечение, а нарколог соображает, как его лучше лечить: амбулаторно или в стационаре. Разумеется, ставит его на наркологический учет, объясняя все последствия такого согласия. В этом случае тоже никакого нового закона не нужно. Суд у нас был и вроде как остается высшей и непререкаемой инстанцией.
Now about the "identification of alcoholics and drug addicts among patients of hospitals and clinics." Most often, such a patient will be referred to a narcologist by a therapist, traumatologist or neurologist, to whom he turned with his complaints while intoxicated. The narcologist will, of course, talk to the newcomer and - see option number 1. Again, there is no need for a new law.
And turning a narcologist into a punishing "guardian angel" (force! Threaten! Persuade him to be treated!) - finally put an end to narcology, from which even now (after staff cuts and funding) little remains. And this is an empty thing, if you think about it. He agreed to treatment, but the next day he did not come (all the more so if he did not need a certificate of incapacity for work). No one has the right to force him to be treated. Not to mention the fact that drug addiction disorders cannot be cured by force. When the patient himself wants, and asks, and is carefully treated, and that does not always work out. This is not a disease that can be cured with one pill or one injection.
It makes sense to express some additional considerations only after it will be possible to get acquainted with the full text of the bill, to see what “ravines are hiding” in it. And it will turn out as with "testing schoolchildren for the identification of drugs." To identify and treat those who started using drugs prophylactically and in advance is a good thing! But the order clearly states "voluntarily and anonymously."
Now figure out for yourself whether someone who regularly uses drugs will come for testing? If by chance someone stupidly gets caught, will he agree to treatment? And who to tell about it if the survey is "anonymous" ? Out of 1,000 examined, at best, one or two mothers will come to ask the doctor: "Doctor, tell me, please, what was the result of this number?" And having learned that it is positive, he will immediately add in a different tone: “This is anonymous, right? Do not try to tell anyone about this, I will sue!"