Pubdate: Sat, 25 Apr 2015
Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2015 The Toronto Star
Contact:  http://www.thestar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/456
Page: IN 6

GET FINDINGS OUT QUICKLY

Few areas of public concern involve higher stakes. Results of 
controversial hair-strand testing, checking for drugs and alcohol, 
have been used in court to send people to jail. In other cases, the 
findings have been used to label parents unfit and deprive them of 
their children.

But questions swirl around the accuracy of this process, especially 
analyses performed at the Hospital for Sick Children's Motherisk lab. 
Serious doubts have emerged and they're of vital concern to society. 
Innocent people's lives may have been wrecked.

So when sound evidence is available on the reliability of this 
testing, the public should be entitled to see results in a timely 
manner. That doesn't appear to be happening in Ontario where an 
independent review, which was supposed to present findings in June, 
has now been given until mid-December to produce a report.

The delay is understandable in that the province expanded the scope 
of the review this week to cover an extra five years of Motherisk 
work. Less easy to excuse is the absence of an interim report this 
spring that would make public findings from the initial stage of the 
review. Given what's at stake, the public deserves to know what has 
been found so far.

Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur ordered a probe in November of 
five years' worth of hair-strand tests done at Motherisk between 2005 
and 2010. Former Ontario Court of Appeal justice Susan Lang was 
assigned to examine the adequacy and reliability of the method used 
to produce evidence in child protection and criminal proceedings.

A specific "immunoassay biochemical" hair test was in question after 
the Court of Appeal found conflicting evidence of reliability in 
October, and after the Star launched an ongoing investigation.

Earlier this month, however, Lang asked the ministry to expand her 
review in light of what she has found so far. In response, Meilleur 
announced the probe's scope will now extend from 2005 to 2015, and it 
will examine the reliability of other hair-strand drug and alcohol 
testing done at Motherisk, beyond the immunoassay biochemical method 
initially under review.

Furthermore, Ontario children's aid societies were instructed to 
immediately stop relying on hair-strand drug or alcohol testing, of 
any sort, in making child protection decisions. Lang was given a new 
deadline, with a final report due no later than Dec. 15.

All of this makes good sense. That fact that Sick Kids suspended, and 
then permanently shut, all non-research related activities at the 
Motherisk lab indicates some level of trouble concerning these tests. 
Yet people remain in the dark about what precisely has gone wrong.

A great deal has clearly been discovered and an interim report 
disclosing those findings would serve the public well.

Citing Meilleur as her source, the Star's Rachel Mendleson has 
reported that Lang will not release an interim report because she 
hasn't yet "heard all the evidence." But, given Lang's original 
deadline, one would expect evidence pertaining to her initial 
assignment to have been almost entirely covered. It's not too much to 
expect a summary of those findings, roughly in keeping with her June 
delivery date.

There's no risk of an interim finding affecting a specific criminal 
or child protection hearing. Lang has been instructed explicitly to 
steer clear of commenting on any individual case. Her final 
recommendations, however, could be used as a basis for subsequent 
reviews delving into specific child protection cases or criminal 
investigations.

Another controversy involving Motherisk concerns financial 
connections between the program and a drug company called Duchesnay. 
Mendleson, along with the Star's David Bruser and Jesse McLean, have 
revealed a troubling lack of transparency on this front.

At least some secrets can be readily cleared away - specifically 
concerning the immunoassay biochemical method used at Motherisk 
before 2010. Thanks to Lang's work so far answers should be at hand.

An interim report would not present the full story on hair-strand 
testing. But it could provide a measure of clarity on a pressing 
issue that has rocked people's lives. The public is, at least, entitled to that.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom