ArticleThe Hastings Center report
Rethinking Mandated Drug Treatment: Why Expanding Freedom Requires Structural Drug Policy Reform.
Article in The Hastings Center report. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this same, May-June 2026, issue of the Hastings Center Report, Brendon Saloner suggests that mandated drug treatment can expand freedom and promote egalitarian social justice so long as three criteria are met. Drawing on our clinical experience in addiction medicine and a critical appraisal of the available evidence, we challenge this claim. We argue that Saloner's three criteria are unlikely to be met within jurisdictions that criminalize drug use and lack supports for people who use drugs. The criterion that mandated treatment be "likely to be beneficial" is undermined by the coercive nature of such interventions and the lack of evidence supporting their effectiveness when compared to voluntary care. Further, the application of mandated treatment risks extending carceral oversight to individuals charged with minor offenses, disproportionately affecting equity-denied populations. Finally, we question whether infringements on liberty through legal oversight can genuinely expand freedom, particularly when such measures exacerbate social instability and undermine the potential for voluntary engagement with care. We contend that meaningful expansion of freedom for people who use drugs is better achieved through voluntary, community-based treatment models supported by robust social infrastructure. A radical reorientation of drug policy-away from coercion and toward supportive, person-centered care-is necessary to achieve the ethical aims of reducing harm, promoting autonomy, and advancing egalitarian social justice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.