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.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS