| Topic: Drug deaths |
|---|
| 1. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 11:28 An interesting article on BBC News - `More than 13,000 heroin and opioid deaths have been missed off official statistics in England and Wales, raising concerns about the impact on the government`s approach to tackling addiction. Research from King`s College London, shared exclusively with BBC News, found that there were 39,232 opioid-related deaths between 2011 and 2022, more than 50% higher than previously known. The error has been blamed on the government`s official statistics body not having access to post-mortem reports or toxicology results. Data on specific drug deaths is a major driver of policy and it is understood the government is now working with coroners to improve the reporting of deaths. The number of opioid deaths per million people in England and Wales has almost doubled since 2012, but this new study means the scale of the problem is likely to be even greater. The flaw in the ONS system is not present in Scotland, where there are no coroners and where National Records Scotland (NRS) is responsible for collating official statistics. Unlike the ONS, the NRS does receive more detailed pathology reports, but differences in how deaths are reported across the UK make it difficult to compare.` After adjusting for this error the rate of drug deaths in Scotland will still be approx 1.5 times the rate for E&W rather than 2.3 times the rate as previously reported. Can we expect to see this reported on the front of the Mail/Express/Telegraph etc? Reply |
| 2. Author: jake89 Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 12:40 All sorts of deaths are recorded differently depending on the country. They key thing in Scotland is to ensure deaths are recorded accurately and seek to reduce instances of deaths that could have been avoided. It sounds like England needs to review how it captures and analyses data. Reply |
| 3. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 13:18 You would have thought the media would check statistics were compiled on a consistent basis before quoting them for comparison purposes. Who can you believe if you can`t trust non-political statistical bodies? Reply |
| 4. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 13:44 I believe that a "drug death" in Scotland is recorded whenever drugs are found in the blood stream of the victim. Someone who is killed in a car crash and has any drugs in their system is recorded as a "drug death" The rules in England are different, hence the big difference. Reply |
| 5. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 13:53 LochgellyAlbert, Tue 16 Sep 13:44 See that raises other questions and it starts becoming really tedious. You really need to know on a case by case basis. So if you’re killed as a passenger in a car and you’re found to have heroin in your system, would that be a drug death? COYP Reply |
| 6. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 14:12 If the figures compiled for the nations within the UK are not comparable how can we be sure those compiled for other countries throughout the world are? Scotland might have a much stricter definition of `drug death` than anywhere else. Reply |
| 7. Author: Wotsit Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 14:26 There`s often more than one reason given, or, more accurately, more than one contributing factor listed, for a death. A passenger in a car who is in an accident with heroin in their system wouldn`t be a drug death unless the drug was considered a contributing factor. Someone on coke distracting the driver and causing them to crash for instance. If drugs are found in the blood of a driver who dies in a car accident then it would most likely be listed as a contributing factor. The cause of death, as it appears on the death certificate, would usually be respiratory failure in the case of a heroin overdose, and whatever specific fatal injuries occurred in the case of a car accident. The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy. Reply |
| 8. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 16:20 So surely only cases should be classed as "drug death " when it`s an obvious overdose? Or does that disrupt the narrative? Post Edited (Tue 16 Sep 16:21) Reply |
| 9. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 16:34 LochgellyAlbert, Tue 16 Sep 16:20 That was my understanding of it but I may be wrong 🤷🏻♂️ COYP Reply |
| 10. Author: jake89 Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 16:44 There was the same issue during COVID. You had people who had stage 4 cancer dying while having COVID and it being recorded as a death from COVID when it was probably the straw that broke the camels back! Remember the phrase - Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Look at minimum unit pricing for example. Stats show a reduction in alcohol abuse, which would suggest success. But it doesn`t consider what the trend was before and if higher alcohol prices were why alcohol abuse reduced. There`s evidence to suggest that problem drinkers simply moved to cheap drugs instead of alcohol. Reply |
| 11. Author: Wotsit Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 17:51 I think folk are maybe missing the distinction between "cause" and " contributing factor"? If you have cancer and die six months earlier than predicted because you get COVID, meaning your respiratory system is impacted, then your cause of death is still cancer, but it`s still medically valid to note that COVID played a part. If you have cancer and your meds impact your judgement so you have a car crash your cause of death would maybe be trauma, but I assume that folk are comfortable with the idea that cancer played a part? If you are addicted to heroin such that your life descends into chaos and you end up homeless and sleeping rough, but die of exposure due to not being aware of your surroundings so you fall asleep on a bench in January with no shirt on, does heroin not play a part in your death despite the actual cause being exposure? The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy. Post Edited (Tue 16 Sep 17:53) Reply |
| 12. Author: jake89 Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 18:10 It doesn`t really matter what the measure is. What matters is comparing like for like. Scotland could becomes the country with the least number dying from drugs if it changes the measure to say they only count it if the person has left a signed declaration stating their death was linked to drug use. Reply |
| 13. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 18:36 That was the point of the original post, jake. If you`re going to prepare a `league table` of countries` drug deaths you have to make sure they`re all defining drug deaths in the same way. I`ve never seen that disclaimer on any of the stats I`ve seen putting Scotland in the worst position. Reply |
| 14. Author: veteraneastender Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 18:55 Stats (in all areas) can be very misleading - a few years back it was highlighted that there had been an annual 100% rise in police Scotland shooting incidents resulting in the death of the allegedly armed victim. The report failed to mention that there had been only one such occurrence the previous year. Post Edited (Tue 16 Sep 18:55) Reply |
| 15. Author: jake89 Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 18:58 wee eck, Tue 16 Sept 18:36 Yep, it`s pointless doing comparisons. If you look at Portugal it will likely have the lowest levels of illegal drug use...because it decriminalised so many drugs 😂 Reply |
| 16. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 19:22 Biggest issue is the headlines in the papers - focus on the negative “Scotland has the biggest drug deaths in Europe again” rather than the positive “Scottish drug related deaths reduced from last year” Usual sh*te though, had it been in England it would’ve been other way about. Reply |
| 17. Author: Tad Allagash Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 22:39 Maybe life expectancy is a better measure. Cause of death is subjective, but age at death is accurately recorded and can’t be gamed. Low life expectancy in an area is a pretty good indicator that there are high levels of drug/alcohol/suicide deaths. Reply |
| 18. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 23:12 No one is disputing that. We`re making the point that you can`t make meaningful comparisons between different countries if you`re not using a consistent way of identifying the cause of death. Reply |
| 19. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Tue 16th Sep 2025. 23:46 wee eck, Tue 16 Sept 23:12 Spot on! Reply |
| 20. Author: ipswichpar Date: Wed 17th Sep 2025. 09:50 The start of this week`s More or Less on Radio 4 made me think about this thread (although it was about employment and unemployment claims). If it takes a professor 10 minutes to explain it`s complicated then there`s no way that a journalist is going to be smart enough to communicate this stuff, or the majority of the country come close to properly understanding it! Reply |