ShareThis Page
Opioids’ hidden consequence |
Letters to the Editor

Opioids’ hidden consequence

| Saturday, April 8, 2017 9:00 p.m

Babies withdraw from addictive drugs, too; it’s called neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS).

Watching a newborn tremble like a leaf, vomit like the girl in “The Exorcist,” be as stiff as a board, cry like a pterodactyl and be as restless as a cocaine addict is absolutely heart-wrenching.

As a mother-baby registered nurse, I care for drug-addicted babies too often. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, incidence of NAS increased 300 percent from 1999 to 2013, proportionate to our U.S. opioid epidemic.

At my hospital, NAS babies are monitored for five days for severe withdrawal, and if needed, admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and treated with morphine. These babies stay for weeks.

This is a burden to our public health due to the costly hospital stay and the need for more nurses. The CDC estimates that a baby with NAS has an average hospital charge of $66,700, while a normal newborn’s cost of care is $3,500.

NAS is a hidden consequence of our opioid epidemic that needs to be brought to the forefront in legislation. No, these mothers shouldn’t be thrown in prison; drug addiction is an illness, like diabetes. We don’t throw noncompliant diabetics in prison, but find treatments for them.

Improving treatment programs for drug-addicted mothers is a priority to protect our babies.

Stacey Shankle


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.