I read the article. I have a few points.
The article is from 2007. That's 14 years ago. I would definitely argue that it is out of date with regards to the prevalence of drink spiking.
The article makes a suggestion that at least one woman who was admitted and tested was raped.
The article admits that some of those tested
likely spiked with additional units of alcohol.
I don't agree with the methodology used. They had 75 people present at the a&e allegding spiking. Therefore they should have tested everyone who presented, not a selection of them .
The article further presents evidence that spiking may be prevalent at two local premises, which is useful information.
Overall I think it's a better study than the last one, but it is flawed due to the testing inconsistency and is probably out of date with regards to prevalence of spiking.
hi.
i agree with your critique of the article, it's not very good, and though it's published in 2007, data was collected in 2004 - so 17 yrs old. the 'discussion' is speculative & in parts provocative. there is no explanation given for the rather low percentage of testing.
the results, however, is consistent with other studies (few & far inbetween); there is one from the same time period from st thomas, london, where 75 of 78 patients presenting at the ed '
alleging they had consumed a spiked drink' had urine samples tested for drugs & found '
unexplained sedative drug exposure' in 2 patients (3%). it concludes:
'Use of sedative drugs to spike drinks may not be as common as reported in the mainstream media. A large number of study participants had serum ethanol concentrations associated with significant intoxication; the source (personal overāconsumption or deliberate drink spiking) is unclear.'
To determine the incidence and character of drink spiking in an urban population of patients within the UK presenting to an emergency department concerned they had consumed a deliberately contaminated drink. Prospective case series determining the ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(patients presenting '
with an allegation of sexual assault' were referred to
'a dedicated clinical and forensic service' and not included in the study.)
there is an australian systematic review of the current evidence on drug facilitated sexual assault (dfsa) from 2017 by laura jane anderson et al:
This comprehensive review suggests that alcohol intoxication combined with voluntary drug consumption presents the greatest risk factor for DFSA, despite populist perceptions that covert drink-spiking is a common occurrence. There is a need to develop policies that encourage early responders to...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(link to abstract, full article paywalled)
there is some more recent articles that seems to show similar results; '
opportunistic' dfsa is the norm, '
proactive/predatory' dfsa seems to account for less than ten, probably even <5% of the investigated cases in most studies.
there is also an italian review from 2019, by f.p. busardo et al, that seems to have made a extremely thorough search of the litterature & institutional reports, which can be downloaded as a free pdf. that might be a good starting point if anyone really wants to dive deep into the subject.
OBJECTIVE: Drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) is a nonconsensual sexual act in which the victim is incapacitated or unconscious due to the effects of
www.europeanreview.org