Safe injection site cuts OD deaths

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Yet another Conservative sore spot.

The number of drug-overdose deaths on Vancouver’s notorious downtown Eastside fell sharply after the opening of a safe injection site, new research shows.

The study, published online Monday in the medical journal The Lancet, shows that fatal overdoses dropped 35 per cent in the vicinity of Insite in the two years after it opened. By comparison, OD deaths dropped only 9 per cent in the rest of Vancouver in that same period.

“No one has ever been able to demonstrate a substantial reduction in overdose deaths due to the presence of a safe injection site, but we have done so,” Thomas Kerr of the Urban Health Research Initiative at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver said in an interview.

Until now, research has shown that Insite reduces behaviours that lead to deadly infections like HIV and hepatitis C, and it reduces public disorder by getting intravenous drug use off the streets.

But the federal government has argued that the evidence of benefit is unclear and tried to shut down Insite.

This has lead to a protracted legal battle – one that has become an important jurisdictional struggle between the provincial and federal governments. Both the B.C. Liberals and New Democrats support Insite and the program has the strong backing of the provincial health officer.

In January of 2010, the B.C. Court of Appeal decided 2-1 that the province has jurisdiction over the facility since it provides IV drug users with a health-care service, which is within provincial jurisdiction.

Its ruling upheld a 2008 trial decision by the B.C. Supreme Court, which found that the application of the federal drug law would violate IV drug users’ Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

The case will be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada on May 12.

“The Conservatives can no longer go around saying the evidence is unclear because the evidence is clear – Insite saves lives,” Dr. Kerr said.

The new study, which examined coroners’ reports, shows that between 2001 and 2005, there were 290 overdose deaths in Vancouver.

Eighty-nine of those deaths occurred within a 500-metre radius of Insite, which is located in the heart of Vancouver’s skid row.

The safe-injection facility opened on Sept. 20, 2003, when the Liberal government was in power. Nurses can supervise IV drug users because the facility was specifically exempted from federal drug possession and trafficking laws. The Conservatives oppose this approach, saying it flies in the face of their anti-drug strategy.

In the two years prior to the opening, there were 56 OD deaths in the neighbourhood; in the two years subsequent, there were 33.

There have been more than 2,000 overdoses at the facility but not a single death. Insite provides booths, along with clean syringes, where intravenous users can inject. Nurses can also revive users who OD – which happens frequently because the purity of street drugs is unpredictable.

The authors argue that having overdoses occur in a controlled setting is much more cost-effective because it takes pressure off the health system.

“The nurse saved my life when I ODed,” said Gary Kyle, who has been an IV drug user on-and-off since 1977. By contrast, he once overdosed on the street, which required the intervention of paramedics, a visit to emergency and hospitalization.

“I’ve shot up in an alley, in the McDonald’s bathroom, the library, you name it. When I do it in public, I’m rushed and careless. At Insite, it’s safer,” Mr. Kyle said.

Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, a long-time supporter of Insite, said he was reluctant to speak during a federal election campaign, but the new evidence is clear.

“Public health programs like this need to be evidence-based, not politically driven,” he said. “And the new evidence proves that it works, that Insite reduces overdoses,” he said.

An earlier study, by the same group of researchers, found that there were more than 900 overdose deaths in British Columbia between 2001 and 2005, and that aboriginal people were disproportionately at risk. About 12 per cent of the OD deaths involved first nations people, who make up less than 4 per cent of the province’s population.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Seems to me there is another thread here about how the Conservatives can't be trusted when it comes to health care. This is one of the issues. Because the program flies in the face of their agenda, it needs to go. They care little that it actually works. A look south of the border at the positions of social conservatives there (in terns of things like stem cell research) and it's clear that their agenda is more important to them than people's health and well being.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Seems to me there is another thread here about how the Conservatives can't be trusted when it comes to health care. This is one of the issues. Because the program flies in the face of their agenda, it needs to go. They care little that it actually works. A look south of the border at the positions of social conservatives there (in terns of things like stem cell research) and it's clear that their agenda is more important to them than people's health and well being.

Not alot of common ground between you and I but here is a little bit and that's a nice thing to see.
 

oldrebel

Nominee Member
Apr 18, 2011
70
0
6
southern ontario
The only safe injection sites are in medical facilities or at home if one is diabetic.
Those so-called safe injection sites do nothing but condone and abet illegal drug use. If our tax dollars are to be used to try saving the lives of people stupid enough to get hooked on hard drugs, I would rather it be spent on rehab centers.
Those who use safe injection sites dont seem to have any desire to kick their habit or better their lives, so why should I care what happens to them?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
The only safe injection sites are in medical facilities or at home if one is diabetic.
Those so-called safe injection sites do nothing but condone and abet illegal drug use. If our tax dollars are to be used to try saving the lives of people stupid enough to get hooked on hard drugs, I would rather it be spent on rehab centers.
Those who use safe injection sites dont seem to have any desire to kick their habit or better their lives, so why should I care what happens to them?


Spoken like a true idiot.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
The only safe injection sites are in medical facilities or at home if one is diabetic.
Those so-called safe injection sites do nothing but condone and abet illegal drug use. If our tax dollars are to be used to try saving the lives of people stupid enough to get hooked on hard drugs, I would rather it be spent on rehab centers.
Those who use safe injection sites dont seem to have any desire to kick their habit or better their lives, so why should I care what happens to them?

Like you have ever visited Incite. You're talking out your ass dude and while that happens here often, it's going to get you called on it when it's this obvious.

Everyone has some burden they haul around with them year after year, no dealing with it, but medicating the symptoms.
Some obvious some so hidden even those who carry them don't want to admit they are there. Addiction being what it is, blaming those who are addicted is pointless until they can become stable and start regaining control of their life.

Incite isn't a "so called" safe injection site, it's reduces the amount of people who die from over doses. It's a fact, proven empirically. The research is available online for you to read the findings. There is no question.

There have been and are people far smarter and much more successful than you addicted to the hardest, most addictive drugs there are. Addiction has nothing to do with intelligence. Every one that is addicted to drugs that at some point wants to kick the addiction. They see the problems it causes in their life and they want out. Addiction doesn't work that way though.

Since you live in Southern Ontario, how much of the money you pay goes towards funding the Incite Clinic in Vancouver?

Ask yourself this, why should anyone care what happens to you? If you keel over in the street, why should anyone do anything other than step over you and continue on to where they are going to? Even just posting that question shows poor quality as a human being. Since someone should have taught you this when you were young and never bothered, I'll tell you why.

For starters it's another human being. All life is sacred and should be cared for at least to a minimum standard because of the nature of life, that could be you, maybe not addicted to drugs, but in some vulnerable position and needing a hand up. Or maybe someone you love that means a lot to you. Would you rather someone walk on by, or help if they could?

Now no one is telling you to go help some junkie get off drugs or spend a who bunch of money in some noble gesture but you could at least get out of the way so that others can do the work.

Walk a mile in their shoes as the saying goes.
 

Elder

Electoral Member
Jan 15, 2011
193
0
16
New Westminster, BC, CA
Here is a valid question: why would we want to prevent addicts from ODing?

Yet another Conservative sore spot.

The number of drug-overdose deaths on Vancouver’s notorious downtown Eastside fell sharply after the opening of a safe injection site, new research shows.

The study, published online Monday in the medical journal The Lancet, shows that fatal overdoses dropped 35 per cent in the vicinity of Insite in the two years after it opened. By comparison, OD deaths dropped only 9 per cent in the rest of Vancouver in that same period.

“No one has ever been able to demonstrate a substantial reduction in overdose deaths due to the presence of a safe injection site, but we have done so,” Thomas Kerr of the Urban Health Research Initiative at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver said in an interview.

Until now, research has shown that Insite reduces behaviours that lead to deadly infections like HIV and hepatitis C, and it reduces public disorder by getting intravenous drug use off the streets.

But the federal government has argued that the evidence of benefit is unclear and tried to shut down Insite.

This has lead to a protracted legal battle – one that has become an important jurisdictional struggle between the provincial and federal governments. Both the B.C. Liberals and New Democrats support Insite and the program has the strong backing of the provincial health officer.

In January of 2010, the B.C. Court of Appeal decided 2-1 that the province has jurisdiction over the facility since it provides IV drug users with a health-care service, which is within provincial jurisdiction.

Its ruling upheld a 2008 trial decision by the B.C. Supreme Court, which found that the application of the federal drug law would violate IV drug users’ Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

The case will be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada on May 12.

“The Conservatives can no longer go around saying the evidence is unclear because the evidence is clear – Insite saves lives,” Dr. Kerr said.

The new study, which examined coroners’ reports, shows that between 2001 and 2005, there were 290 overdose deaths in Vancouver.

Eighty-nine of those deaths occurred within a 500-metre radius of Insite, which is located in the heart of Vancouver’s skid row.

The safe-injection facility opened on Sept. 20, 2003, when the Liberal government was in power. Nurses can supervise IV drug users because the facility was specifically exempted from federal drug possession and trafficking laws. The Conservatives oppose this approach, saying it flies in the face of their anti-drug strategy.

In the two years prior to the opening, there were 56 OD deaths in the neighbourhood; in the two years subsequent, there were 33.

There have been more than 2,000 overdoses at the facility but not a single death. Insite provides booths, along with clean syringes, where intravenous users can inject. Nurses can also revive users who OD – which happens frequently because the purity of street drugs is unpredictable.

The authors argue that having overdoses occur in a controlled setting is much more cost-effective because it takes pressure off the health system.

“The nurse saved my life when I ODed,” said Gary Kyle, who has been an IV drug user on-and-off since 1977. By contrast, he once overdosed on the street, which required the intervention of paramedics, a visit to emergency and hospitalization.

“I’ve shot up in an alley, in the McDonald’s bathroom, the library, you name it. When I do it in public, I’m rushed and careless. At Insite, it’s safer,” Mr. Kyle said.

Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, a long-time supporter of Insite, said he was reluctant to speak during a federal election campaign, but the new evidence is clear.

“Public health programs like this need to be evidence-based, not politically driven,” he said. “And the new evidence proves that it works, that Insite reduces overdoses,” he said.

An earlier study, by the same group of researchers, found that there were more than 900 overdose deaths in British Columbia between 2001 and 2005, and that aboriginal people were disproportionately at risk. About 12 per cent of the OD deaths involved first nations people, who make up less than 4 per cent of the province’s population.

Here is a controversial question: why do we want to prevent addicts from ODing? They do not contribute positively to society and care nothing for themselves or former families. The addiction is the focus.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Here is a controversial question: why do we want to prevent addicts from ODing?

I personally do not want to walk down a street, past dead bodies...I wouldn't want to go pick up dead bodies...reformed addicts can and do make something of their lives, and contribute to their communities.

Why wouldn't you prevent needless deaths?