Skip to main content

Discontinuation of Adequate Opioid Agonist Treatment in Prison: A Violation of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights Behind Bars

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 103))

  • 311 Accesses

Abstract

Several examples from Germany indicate that the provision of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) to people living in prisons is rather fragementary. As prison healthcare is in the responsability of the Ministries of Justice in the 16 ‘Länder’ (states) the health care for opioid dependent prisoners is rather heterogenous, there are countries with almost no waiting list for patients and there are Länder with hardly any provision of this kind of treatment at all, which means that people who are in treatment will not receive a continuation. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) clearly stated that such a state of affairs is clearly not in compliance with the principle of equivalence of care. The Court also dealt with such a case and found that the physical and mental strain that the applicant suffered as a result of his untreated or inadequately treated health condition could, in principle, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court concluded that the failure to adequately assess the applicants’s treatment needs involves a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights). This article is addressing the health inequality in prisons in the German federal states. The supply of OAT inclusive psychosocial support in prison is still inadequate and falls short of the therapy standard for people outside of prison. There is still a gap between the number of people living in prison in need of opioid agonist treatment and those receiving it, although benefits such as reduced risk of death in the post-release period, reduced risk of transmission of infectious diseases, and reduced reoffending have been shown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECtHR, Wenner v. Germany, Application No. 62303/13, Judgment of 01 September 2016.

  2. 2.

    CPT (2017), Report to the German Government on the visit to Germany carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, CPT/Inf (2017) 13, para 61.

  3. 3.

    Ibid.

  4. 4.

    Ministry of Justice and for Europe (2018).

  5. 5.

    The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNODC (2015), Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).

  6. 6.

    The Lancet Editorial Board (2013), p. 555; Rodley and Pollard (2009).

  7. 7.

    Nosrati et al. (2019).

  8. 8.

    Kastelic et al. (2007).

  9. 9.

    Stallwitz and Stöver (2007), pp. 464–474.

  10. 10.

    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by UNGA Res. 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976.

  11. 11.

    Pont (2008), pp.184–197.

  12. 12.

    Deimel (2014); Bundesärztekammer (2017), Richtlinie der Bundesärztekammer zur Durchführung der substitutionsgestützten Behandlung Opiodabhängiger.

  13. 13.

    Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (2018), Substitution in Haft. Deine Rechte, deine Möglichkeiten.

  14. 14.

    Kastelic et al. (2009); Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (2018), Bericht zum Substitutionsregister, Bundesopiumstelle, Bonn 4.

  15. 15.

    Bart (2012); Volkow et al. (2014); World Health Organization (2009), WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee, Guidelines for the Psychosocially Assisted Pharmacological Treatment of Opioid Dependence, WHO, Geneva.

  16. 16.

    Hedrich et al. (2012), pp. 501–517.

  17. 17.

    Bundesministerium für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (2001), Betäubungsmittel-Verschreibungsverordnung - BtMVV. vol. § 5 paragraph 2 sentence 1.

  18. 18.

    Wakeman (2017), pp. 922–930.

  19. 19.

    Opitz-Welke et al. (2018), pp. 808–814.

  20. 20.

    Fazel et al. (2006), pp.181–191; Pont et al. (2012).

  21. 21.

    Zurhold et al. (2005).

  22. 22.

    Anderson and Kearney (2000), pp. 43–46.

  23. 23.

    Dole and Nyswander (1966), pp. 2011–2017; Dole (1972), pp. 366–369.

  24. 24.

    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, International Labour Organization, UNDP, World Health Organization, UNAIDS (2013), HIV prevention, treatment and care in prisons and other closed settings: a comprehensive package of interventions.

  25. 25.

    Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck University of London (2018) World Prison Data.

  26. 26.

    Pont et al. (2012).

  27. 27.

    Reimer et al. (2009), pp. A-2227.

  28. 28.

    Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (2018), Substitution in Haft. Deine Rechte, deine Möglichkeiten.

  29. 29.

    Junod et al. (2018), pp. 31–36.

  30. 30.

    Lampert et al. (2016), pp. 153–165.

  31. 31.

    Lampert et al. (2017).

  32. 32.

    Fazel and Baillargeon (2011), pp. 956–65.

  33. 33.

    Lampert et al. (2018).

  34. 34.

    BMG—Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2015), Gesetz zur Stärkung der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention (Präventionsgesetz – PrävG)

  35. 35.

    Arcaya et al. (2015), pp. 27106–27106; Whitehead (1992), pp. 429–445.

  36. 36.

    https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/germany.

  37. 37.

    Keppler and Stöver (2009); Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Verbraucherschutz und Antidiskriminierung, Abraham (2017), Uniform federal data collection on substance-bound addiction problems in the prison system [Presentation in German], In 9th European Conference on Health Promotion in Detention, Land Berlin, Vienna 22 Sep.

  38. 38.

    Oberlandesgericht München (2012), Urteil vom 05.06.2012 - 4 Ws 103/12 (R), Jurisdiction, München.

  39. 39.

    Deutscher Bundestag (2016), State of affairs WD 9 - 3000 - 049/16, Substitutionsbehandlung im Justizvollzug, pp. 7–8.

  40. 40.

    Die Drogenbeauftragte der Bundesregierung (2019), Drogen- und Suchtbericht 2019, Druck- und Verlagshaus Zarbock GmbH & Co. KG, Frankfurt.

  41. 41.

    Mortler (2018); Bundesgesundheitsministerium (2018), Schätzungen Opiodabhängiger in Deutschland.

  42. 42.

    Deutscher Bundestag (2016), pp. 7–8.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Gross et al. (2021); Stöver and Keppler (2021), pp. 59–66; Groß (2021), pp. 74–80.

  45. 45.

    Deutscher Bundestag (2016), pp. 7–8.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Ibid. footnote 46.

  48. 48.

    Schäffler and Zimmermann (2012).

  49. 49.

    Bundesärztekammer (2017), Richtlinie der Bundesärztekammer zur Durchführung der substitutionsgestützten Behandlung Opiodabhängiger; Deutscher Bundestag (2016), pp. 7–8.

  50. 50.

    Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (2018), Substitution in Haft. Deine Rechte, deine Möglichkeiten; ECtHR, Wenner v. Germany, Application No. 62303/13, 1 September 2016.

  51. 51.

    Ibid.

  52. 52.

    Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (2018), Substitution in Haft. Deine Rechte, deine Möglichkeiten.

  53. 53.

    Bundesärztekammer (2017), Richtlinie der Bundesärztekammer zur Durchführung der substitutionsgestützten Behandlung Opiodabhängiger.

  54. 54.

    Kastelic et al. (2009).

  55. 55.

    Friedmann and Schwartz (2012), p. 10.

  56. 56.

    Global commission on drug policy (2017), The World Drug Perception Problem – Report.

  57. 57.

    Nunn et al. (2009), pp. 83–88.

  58. 58.

    Friedmann et al. (2012), pp. 9–18.

  59. 59.

    Volkow et al. (2014), pp. 2063–2066.

  60. 60.

    Goodman (2013), pp. 81–82.

  61. 61.

    Tretter et al. (2010), p. 2.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.; Wiese (2012).

  63. 63.

    Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (2018), Substitution in Haft. Deine Rechte, deine Möglichkeiten.

  64. 64.

    Fährmann et al. (2021a).

  65. 65.

    Sordo et al. (2017), p. j1550.

  66. 66.

    Marsden et al. (2017), pp. 1408–1418.

  67. 67.

    Kastelic et al. (2007); United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2003), Investing in Drug Abuse Treatment - A Discussion Paper for Policy Makers. United Nations, New York.

  68. 68.

    Kinlock et al. (2007), pp. 220–227.

  69. 69.

    Pont et al. (2012).

  70. 70.

    Fazel and Baillargeon (2011), pp. 956–965.

  71. 71.

    Altice et al. (2016), pp. 1228–1248.

  72. 72.

    Haussig (2018), pp. 5–13.

  73. 73.

    Fazel and Baillargeon (2011), pp. 956–965.

  74. 74.

    Gaube et al. (1993), pp. 246–249.

  75. 75.

    Zylka-Menhorn (1999), pp. 312ff.

  76. 76.

    Müller et al. (2017), p. 843.

  77. 77.

    Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (2018), Substitution in Haft. Deine Rechte, deine Möglichkeiten.

  78. 78.

    Csete and Catania (2013), p. 10:35.

  79. 79.

    Wakeman (2017), pp. 922–930

  80. 80.

    U.S. National Library of Medicine (2018), Opioid addiction. Genetics Home Reference; Poehlke et al.(2016); United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2017), Prevention of drug use and treatment of drug use disorders in rural settings. Revised Version, Special Population Series. United Nations, New York.

  81. 81.

    Fährmann et al. (2021b).

  82. 82.

    Fährmann et al. (2021b).

  83. 83.

    von Bernuth et al. (2020).

  84. 84.

    Ibid., p. 2.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heino Stöver .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Annexes

Annexes

Table 1 People with opioid use disorder living in prison, who receive OAT. Overview of the individual German federal states ([13–18] and “Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe”)
Fig. 1
A map illustrates the countries that have O A T available in the community. Some of them are China, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, and the Maldives. Some countries with O A T available in the community and prison are the United States, Australia, Poland, India, and Ireland. Countries without O A T are not labeled.

Global availability of OAT in the community and in prisons (Source: Harm Reduction International 2020) (Harm Reduction International (2020): The Global State of Harm Reduction 2020, 7th edition; pp. 16–17; https://www.hri.global/files/2021/03/04/Global_State_HRI_2020_BOOK_FA_Web.pdf)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stöver, H., Pont, J., Wolff, H., Enggist, S. (2022). Discontinuation of Adequate Opioid Agonist Treatment in Prison: A Violation of Human Rights. In: Burbano Herrera, C., Haeck, Y. (eds) Human Rights Behind Bars. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 103. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-11483-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-11484-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics