ArticleHealth and human rights2017
How Drug Control Policy and Practice Undermine Access to Controlled Medicines.
Article in Health and human rights, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of Ghana's antibiotic control policy framework: an analysis using the Anderson governance framework.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- "It's just what's around these days": social and contextual pragmatism in substance transitions.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Perceptual Discrepancies of Opioid Analgesics and Psychotropic Drugs: A Cross-Sectional Study of Korean Patients and Physicians.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Preference for Abstinence-Based Recovery and Public Stigma Toward Substance Use.Substance use & misuse · 2025Article
- Decriminalisation and the end of AIDS: keep the promise, follow the science, and fulfill human rights.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2023Review
- Associations of Substance Use Behaviors With Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempts Among US and Chinese Adolescents.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug conventions serve as the cornerstone for domestic drug laws and impose a dual obligation upon states to prevent the misuse of controlled substances while ensuring their adequate availability for medical and scientific purposes. Despite the mandate that these obligations be enforced equally, the dominant paradigm enshrined in the drug conventions is an enforcement-heavy criminal justice response to controlled substances that prohibits and penalizes their misuse. Prioritizing restrictive control is to the detriment of ensuring adequate availability of and access to controlled medicines, thereby violating the rights of people who need them. This paper argues that the drug conventions' prioritization of criminal justice measures-including efforts to prevent non-medical use of controlled substances-undermines access to medicines and infringes upon the right to health and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. While the effects of criminalization under drug policy limit the right to health in multiple ways, we draw on research and documented examples to highlight the impact of drug control and criminalization on access to medicines. The prioritization and protection of human rights-specifically the right to health and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress-are critical to rebalancing drug policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28630556PMC5473053What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.