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