Pubdate: Wed, 14 Jun 2000
Source: Border Mail, The (Australia)
Contact:  http://www.bordermail.com.au/
Author: Julianne Whyte

INDEPENDENT OPINION NEEDED ON PROGRAMS

THE letter from Dr Campbell Aitken (Opinion, The Border Mail, June 10) is
interesting, coming from such a major research centre.

He describes a variety of measures (variables) introduced to control
HIV/AIDS infection, but makes no mention of any control group to prove that
needle exchange made the difference in reducing the number of new cases
(incidence rate) of that infection.

This was the same comment that the World Health Organisation made when it
reported on the Swiss trials of safe injecting rooms.

The Alcohol and Other Drug Unit of the Upper Hume Community Health Service
also made the same assertion about needle exchange programs as Dr Aitken (on
June 12).

However, this article also failed to show by what standards or by what
control group they are using to prove the effectiveness of harm
minimisation/harm reduction programs.

Dr Aitken claims that "there is little reason to believe that anything other
than the availability of clean needles and syringes in Australia is reducing
hepatitis C incidence".

Is he really saying that the other measures used to counsel and educate
intravenous drug users do not play a significant part in this statistic?

That free needles and free syringes are all that will reduce the incidence
of Hepatitis C amongst the intravenous drug users.

What studies are there that prove this?

Where are the control groups that can make this assertion stand up to trial?

I am willing to stand trial on this issue, as Dr Andrew Byrne suggests,
provided that an independent adjudicator such as the World Health
Organisation is invited to review the validity of the claims made by the
proponents of harm reduction programs.

Julianne Whyte, Lowesdale
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk