The scandal over tranquilizers being given to preschool children in New Taipei City is becoming increasingly heated. This case, involving feeding narcotics to children to keep them quiet so their teachers could rest, has come as quite a shock.
Media reported that several children have tested positive for residues of two sedative classes — barbiturates and benzodiazepines.
Barbiturates are sedative and hypnotic medications that are legally classed as Schedule 3 restricted medicines and category 3 narcotics. As their half-life is about 100 hours in adults and a little longer in children, the concentration is often too low to detect in a blood test conducted after several days or weeks — it can only be detected by testing a person’s urine or hair.
Benzodiazepines are another class of sedative and hypnotic drug, classed as a category 4 narcotic. Their half-life depends on how long it is effective. They might become undetectable after a few days.
However, the question that concerns most people is how the preschool could obtain controlled drugs so easily, while government departments cannot source the drugs’ origins.
Media and people interviewed about the incident have said that the barbiturates that were given to the children were obtained from compound or single medicines that physicians prescribed for sick children.
This opinion requires clarification. Medical barbiturates are Schedule 3 restricted medicines, so the person who receives them must present a prescription along with an identity card, and sign for the drugs.
The transaction must be logged. Local government health departments spot-check hospitals and clinics that have received restricted medicines, and those who breach the regulations are fined at least NT$60,000.
Therefore, it is impossible for hospitals and clinics to casually dispense restricted medicines without leaving a paper trail.
It is commonplace for preschools to give children medicine that has been prescribed to them.
However, they would always do so following a doctor’s prescription given to the school by parents. Teachers would never take out a bunch of colorful medicines and feed them to children, let alone those containing controlled drugs of unknown origin.
Therefore, the drugs might have come from someone who obtained them in accordance with National Health Insurance (NHI) regulations: They could have come from a pharmacy that sells drugs illegally on a self-paid basis without registering the transaction, or from a hospital or clinic that illegally dispenses drugs on a self-paid basis — such as through a prescription under the guise of reimbursement — or even from illegal online purchases.
Judicial departments and competent health authorities should trace the source of the drugs as soon as possible and severely punish any lawbreakers.
Until the source of the drugs is found, it would be better not to accuse anyone. No legitimate physician would prescribe sedative hypnotic drugs such as barbiturates to children unless they suffer from epilepsy, nor would they prescribe barbiturates to children suffering from common illnesses.
If they really did prescribe such medicines, their hospital or clinic would upload the prescriptions daily to the NHI’s database.
Details can easily be retrieved from hospital or clinic records where children are treated and from the NHI database. Commentators should desist from idle speculation to avoid spreading fear.
Lin Yung-zen is president of the Taiwan Primary Care Association and a supervisor of the Taiwan Pediatric Association.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS