Pubdate: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 Source: Vancouver Courier (CN BC) Copyright: 2009 Vancouver Courier Contact: http://www.vancourier.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/474 Author: Allen Garr HEALTH MEETS IDEOLOGY IN INSITE CASE It was standing room only in the small B.C. Court of Appeal hearing room Monday as a case that will not only determine the future of North America's sole supervised injection site but the very nature of health care and addiction treatment in Canada kicked off. Two decisions are being appealed, both the result of a case decided a year ago before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield. The case was brought before Pitfield by two drug addicts who were joined in their actions by the PHS Community Services Society, which operates Insite under contract with the Vancouver Health Authority. At the time, you may recall, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government was endlessly dithering over whether to extend a federal exemption under Canada's Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA) to allow Insite to carry on with the practice of assisting addicts to possess and inject illegal drugs, heroin and cocaine. Harper's obvious inclination was to close Insite. The first decision by Justice Pitfield was the one that got the most attention and sparked the appeal by the federal government being heard this week. Pitfield decided the CDSA prohibitions of drug use violated the charter rights of addicts intent on using Insite as a health care facility. In Pitfield's most pointed comment on the matter, he said: "The blanket prohibition contributes to the harm it seeks to prevent." Pitfield ordered the federal law struck down, but suspended his ruling until June 30 of this year to give Ottawa time to redraft the law to bring it in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights. The second decision by Pitfield went in favour of the federal government: Essentially he ruled that even though health care is funded by the province, the federal government still has control over standards set in the facilities operated by the provincial government. That decision is being appealed by PHS and the various interveners, which include VANDU, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, Vancouver Coastal Health, the provincial government and The Dr. Peter Centre. The Monday hearing I sat through concerned itself entirely with the federal appeal on the Charter issue. While it may not indicate anything about what Ottawa thinks, lawyer Robert Frater, representing Canada's Attorney General said early on, that in the event his side loses he will seek an extension of that June 30 deadline. The guts of his argument, which all has to do with why Pitfield was wrong in his judgment, is simply this: The government is under no obligation to provide citizens with a facility to possess and consume illegal drugs. The fact that, without a place like Insite, an injection drug user's life may be more stressful--because the possibility their lives are at greater risk--is to be expected. "It should be stressful to break the law," he told the court. Joseph Arvay, representing PHS, said Frater was mischaracterizing his client's position and Pitfield's reasoning. He said in this case addicts are sick people whose illness compels them to inject drugs. Part of the responsibility of the government and health care providers is to ensure they can do that in as safe an environment as possible. "When the law stands between ill people and the health care they need, that law deprives those people of their rights to life and security of person." "Our submission," Arvay said, "makes the value of life paramount over any ideology about doing drugs." In this view he is supported by the vast majority of British Columbians if not Canadians. The odd one out in this debate, the one intent on pursuing an ideology that denies sick people health care and puts their lives at greater risk, is Harper and his government in Ottawa. The hearing ends today. The court's decision will be some time off. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart