Pubdate: Thu, 08 Nov 2007
Source: Argosy, The (CN NK Edu)
Copyright: 2007 Argosy Publications, Inc.
Contact:  http://argosy.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2655
Author: Stephen Middleton, Argosy Staff
Note: Title by MAP
Referenced: Is The End Insite? 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n1302/a08.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Insite (Insite)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Downtown+Eastside
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?137 (Needle Exchange)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Tony+Clement
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Stephen+Harper

INSITE

"There are facts in two things, science and opinion; the former 
begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."  Hippocrates, Law

Whether Nobel Laureate or first year university student, any 
scientist worth their salt knows that objectivity is the foundation 
of their work. With that in mind, I read this week's article on the 
Insite facility in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside with great concern.

In a nutshell, Insite operates under an exemption from the Criminal 
Code that allows them to deliver a safe-injection and needle exchange 
service without fear of prosecution or police intervention. It is 
consistent with the Government of British Columbia's "Four Pillar 
Approach" to combating the scourge of drug addiction through 
prevention, treatment, harm-reduction, and enforcement. Furthermore, 
it is entirely funded by the Portland Health Authority of British Columbia.

However, the exemption that Insite was granted from prosecution under 
the Criminal Code is set to expire and the Conservative Government of 
Canada has been less than forthcoming in offering to renew it. In 
fact, they've gone so far as to question the facility's 
effectiveness. On Oct. 4, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper claimed 
that Insite was "a second-best strategy at best because if you remain 
a drug addict, I don't care how much harm you reduce, you're going to 
have a short and miserable life." Health Minister Tony Clement went 
on to say that, "There has been more research done, and some of it 
has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and 
questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite" When 
asked which study he was referring to, Minister Clement was unable to 
provide an answer. Call me cynical, but I question whether it's care 
and sincerity for drug addicts that is driving Mr. Harper and Mr. 
Clement's agenda.

The fact is Insite and its effectiveness are things to be judged by 
science and science alone. If Mr. Harper truly had the welfare and 
health of drug addicts in mind, he would consider the twenty-five 
different, independent studies supporting the positive work the 
facility has done or consult the doctors, nurses, and front line 
social workers who dedicate their lives to solving the problem of 
drug addiction. He didn't. Thankfully, these front-line professionals 
took it upon themselves to make their position known.

On August 16, 2007, in an open letter to the Prime Minister, 130 
scientists, doctors, and public health professionals wrote that "the 
health of the nation is placed in peril if our leaders ignore crucial 
research findings simply because they run contrary to a rigid policy 
agenda driven by ideology or fixed beliefs." Strong words; 
particularly if you consider that the letter's signatories included 
Dr. Robert Brunham, head of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control; Dr. 
Richard Lessard, Montreal's director of public health; Dr. Perry 
Kendall, British Columbia's chief medical officer of health; and 
leading HIV-AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Wainberg of McGill University.

For Mr. Harper and his government to ignore the prompting of so many 
respected and experienced scientists means one of two things; either 
Mr. Harper considers his knowledge of the situation to be superior to 
the 130-odd signatories of the letter or he's basing his judgement on 
something other than science. If it's the former, I anxiously await 
his publication in a respected scientific journal so that he can 
defend his skepticism. If it's the latter, I worry for the safety and 
decency of our country. Society has long acknowledged science's 
primacy in answering factual questions; there is simply no better 
standard to date. For Canada's elected representatives to use 
ideology and moral grandstanding instead of fact is both dangerous 
and irresponsible.

For the record, I'd like to make clear that I'm claiming that science 
is the sole authority to judge factual questions. Normative 
questions--questions of what should be or what ought to be--are the 
realm of ethics and the social sciences. Science does itself a great 
disservice when it tries to answer these types of moral issues.

Ultimately, the decision our Government takes on Insite will have 
profound implications, both for the addicts whose lives will be worse 
for the lack of this service, and for Canada as a whole. If our 
government chooses to ignore the promptings of science on this 
question, I shudder to think what it has in mind for something like 
the Kyoto Protocol and the proof behind anthropogenic climate change.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake