Would you vaccinate your child against cocaine?
Treatment Online has an interesting piece on the development of a cocaine vaccine. Unlike other drugs that reduce the pleasurable effect of addictive drugs, this is genuinely a vaccine - it persuades the immune system to attack cocaine molecules.
There are various drugs that are sometimes described conveniently, but inaccurately, as 'vaccines' for addictive substances.
For example, disufiram (aka Antabuse) creates a severe hangover 10 minutes after taking any alcoholic drink by inhibiting certain enzymes in the liver which break down alcohol. The idea is that it acts as an instant form of aversion therapy.
A drug called naltrexone blocks opioids in the brain which all pleasurable drugs trigger, either directly (in the case of heroin), or indirectly (in the case of alcohol). Naltrexone simply aims to reduce how 'fun' the drug is, leading to extinction of the link between the drug and the 'high'.
However, neither of these are actually 'vaccines' in the proper sense of the word.
Vaccines are substances that stimulate the immune system. The immune system identifies and adapts to the key features of the potentially dangerous invader, and works to destroy it.
Of course, this happens when foreign pathogens (like diseases) enter the body, but the immune system can be triggered by safe or less dangerous substances that share the 'key features' with the more dangerous disease. This safe or less dangerous substance is the vaccine.
Edward Jenner invented the procedure after working out that giving people a tiny amount of the non-lethal cowpox virus vaccinated them against the deadly smallpox virus. In fact, this is where the word 'vaccinate' comes from as 'vacca' means cow in Latin.
The developers of the new cocaine vaccine, known as 'TA-CD', are doing essentially the same thing by cleverly combining a deactivated cocaine molecule with a deactivated cholera toxin molecule.
The deactivated cholera toxin is enough to trigger the immune system, which finds and adapts to the new invader.
Because the cholera toxin and the cocaine molecule are combined, the immune system also adapts to the key features of cocaine, so works out how to seek and destroy cocaine molecules.
This means they never reach the brain in sufficient quantities to cause an effect.
A key advantage is that unlike other anti-addiction drugs, which have to be in the body to have their effect, the cocaine vaccine permanently changes the immune system to neutralise cocaine.
Of course, it may not be completely effective, or it may not work in all people, but that's the aim.
The drug is about to studied with a Phase III clinical trial to see if it useful in treating cocaine addiction, after which, if it is shown to be safe and effective, it could be approved for widespread use.
Unlike the current concerns about the supposed 'new ethical challenges' of medical therapies being used by healthy people (which, as we've noted, are actually as old as drugs themselves), this therapy may present a relatively new ethical dilemma.
If effective, you can see that some parents might want to vaccinate their non-addicted, perfectly healthy children, so they are 'immune' to cocaine.
The difference here, is that once given, the 'immunity' may be permanent. In other words, you would make the decision that your child will never be able to experience the effects of cocaine for the rest of their life.
One interesting effect might be an 'arms race' between illicit drug producers and vaccine makers. As children become 'vaccinated' against the common drugs of abuse, the market for street drugs would fragment and diversify into drugs that don't have vaccines yet.
A Brave New World indeed.
I know that this is a bit of an old story (there are newer ones available on the topic), however it goes into detail about how the vaccine actually works, and brings up an interesting ethical point on whether parents should be able to vaccinate their children against cocaine (or any drug) use.
Is it the parents' right to decide whether their child should be able to use cocaine, to the point that they should be given the choice of whether or not to give them a vaccine which would permanently prevent them from achieving effects from the drug?
What I would like to also bring up is what if the government were to decide to give this vaccine to people without telling them? Say 'slip' it into the swine flu vaccine for instance? It would surely make sense from an economic standpoint as they would no-longer have to pay for cocaine rehabilitation and overdose, nor would they have to any-longer fund resources to combat the drug. What's to say they wouldn't do something like that?