Monthly Archives: March 2012

Addiction, Issues, Municipal

Harm Reduction

Leave a comment

Reading Simon Gibson’s recent comments on harm reduction had me wondering if someone ought to inform Mr Gibson that ‘I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out’ is a Joke, not a statement of reality.

Change is uncomfortable, conspicuously so in instances necessitating changing one’s mind.

It is far more comfortable, far more the usual human way, to let inertia keep us bogged down in what we know – no matter how inaccurate that ‘knowledge’ is.

“Gibson said he worries Abbotsford could end up being a centre for drug treatment programs that support continued addiction without addressing the deeper problem.”

If Abbotsford council were to repeal the bylaw there would be NO flood of people into Abbotsford. For the simple reason that harm reduction is part of healthcare everywhere in BC except Abbotsford, and since people everywhere else in BC already have access to these services they have no need to come to Abbotsford.

While the health of Abbotsford’s citizens should be of concern to Abbotsford City Council, council’s actions make it clear the health of Abbotsford’s citizens is not a matter of concern to council, at least not in the manner an Arena or professional hockey team or paying million dollars subsidies are..

Still, City Council’s anti-harm reduction bylaw is consistent with Council’s policy of profligate mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. Because of the bylaw, dollars for Fraser Health programs containing even the tiniest amount of harm reduction are spent in every Fraser Health community BUT Abbotsford.

“Needle exchange, safe injection sites and free-standing methadone clinics will perhaps be desirable for some addicts but without a full detox facility, they could almost certainly create an environment of social acceptance [for drug addiction],” said Gibson.

Hmmm. I had not realized that there was an environment of social acceptance of alcoholism – despite alcohol being legal. I was also under the impression that cigarettes being legal did not preserved the environment of social acceptance that existed prior to public knowledge of the serious negative health consequences of smoking. Nor did legal status stop the development of an environment of social disapproval/non-acceptance of smoking.

Leaving me wondering how Mr Gibson could conclude that heath care services to address the serious negative health consequences of addiction would in any way encourage social acceptance?

Indeed, would not a focus by the health authorities on the negative health consequences of drug use serve to decrease social acceptance of drug use?
Would not a public focus by the health authorities on the serious negative health consequences discourage drug use period?

Harm reduction could act as a disincentive for addicts to seek treatment, he [Simon Gibson] added“

The evidence makes it clear that drug users involved with harm reduction programs such as Insite get into treatment faster. I know it seems counterintuitive, but then substance use is a people issue and people are contrary.

The reality that substance users involved with harm reduction programs seek recovery and wellness sooner is why David Portesi, director of public health for Fraser Health, stated.

“[The bylaw] drives clean needle distribution into the shadows, increases the value of used needles on the street and increases the risk of HIV and Hep C infection.”

“And at the same time, it reduces our ability to engage users in treatment discussions.”

This outcome, people seeking recovery and wellness faster with harm reduction, is consistent with the fact that stable, safe, supportive housing results in people seeking recovery and wellness sooner.

Councillor Gibson went on to state “Harm reduction will do little to make Abbotsford a safer and more secure community.”

It doesn’t really matter whether the above statement arises from philistinism or from the wilful ignorance of a closed mind, sealed tight to prevent a single new thought entering and disturbing the mind. What matters is the blindness reflected in the statement and the negative consequences for ALL citizens of Abbotsford.

Harm reduction is not about drug treatment programs it is about healthcare – for the individual substance users/abusers and the other members of the community the users/abusers live in.

The women selling themselves for money for drugs depend on upstanding citizens purchasing sex because those good citizens are the ones with the money they need to feed their addiction.

Have you seen the advertisement for the vaccination against Hepatitis A & B if you are travelling? An advertisement that uses how easy it is to be infected with Hepatitis A or B to scare you into using their product? You don’t have to go to a foreign country to get infected with Hepatitis A or B.

This sobering reality is why I was/am sure to be vaccinated against Hep A & B.

Unfortunately there are no vaccinations for Hepatitis C or AIDS.\

Should you suggest that perhaps we should build some housing for these vulnerable members of our community, given the clear evidence that providing housing gets people into treatment quicker and supports them staying in recovery instead of relapsing, the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over needles, needles, needles begins.

Given the litany of citizens worries about dirty needles and the potential negative health consequences of dirty needles, how does council justify refusing to allow programs that reduce the number of dirty needles left lying about?

Negative health consequences do not discriminate, do not play favourites, their nature is to spread everywhere they can.

I suppose it is only to be expected that Councillor Gibson and council gave no thought to the fact that their bylaw would negatively impact healthcare in Abbotsford. Or that Councillor Gibson sees no benefit in council no longer interfering with the providing of healthcare to Abbotsford’s citizens.

“Harm reduction will do little to make Abbotsford a safer and more secure community.”

I am driven to abjure any association with the above statement.

The indifference to, the callous disregard for, the state of our fellow citizens, the wellness of our neighbours, evidenced by that statement is anathema.

‘If there ain’t nothing in it for me, then there ain’t no reason for me to care or be benevolent or have concern for the welfare of my neighbour’

While it is not easy, is in fact most times a struggle, both ethics and spirituality mandate an approach to those abusing substances (of any description) based on:

‘………….. The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’

behaviour, Caveat emptor

Ignored to Death

Leave a comment

During a conversation several members of the homeless community posed a question of ethics, an ethical challenge about the behaviours and actions of the people, institutions and organizations in dealing with an individual – and the fact that these types of behaviours and actions were not unique to this individual.

The ethical challenge applies not just to those directly involved but included the governments whose actions have created the conditions in which these behaviours can or will occur. It also included all of us who have created the ethos [the fundamental character or spirit of a culture] of British Columbia and Canada.

The ethos of a community, a province and a country are not created by words or piously beating our breasts and declaring to the world how wonderfully pure we are and impure others are. No, the ethos of our society results from our actions AND our inactions. The ethos of Canada is the sum total of the behaviours of ALL of us, not some mysterious them.

Mr Dix, before you begin blaming the Liberals and declaring how innocent you and the NDP are – you are at least as culpable, as blameworthy, as the Liberals. It was you Mr Dix who ran around the province taking the politically popular position of extinguishing the HST and ignoring the devastating negative consequences extinguishing the HST who have on the most vulnerable, those most in need of help in BC. An ethical opposition would be focused on speaking for the most vulnerable for they have no voice that will be heard to speak for themselves. An opposition focussed on scoring political points so it can gain power and form the next government is an ethically challenged Political Party.

I originally met George shortly after becoming homeless. At least at one point I was the homeless one and George the housed person. I cannot say who the real George was because I did not met George until after he suffered a traumatic brain injury. Yes at the time I met him George could be a little crusty. And yes, George did use illegal substances.

Flash forward to the first half of 2011 where George and I had a conversation, with George speaking about his feeling that after more than a decade he was starting to get to where he was before his brain injury.

The next time I ran into George, he was fresh from the hospital where he had just lost some toes to circulation problems. Regular meals at the Salvation Army, nagging by the Salvation Army’s parish nurse and others who knew George, led to him turning up at the Salvation Army almost dancing. He was so happy he was nearly dancing because he had just come from a check-up where he was told that his physical health had improved so much they would not have to remove more toes as expected.

When I saw George again recently it was quite a shock because he looked terrible – death warmed over terrible – looking like a walking corpse. He was fresh out of the hospital where he had an operation on his stomach. The operation has left George feeling unwell, in a lot of pain and thinking (as do most who see him) that he will, sooner rather than later, be dead.

Hardly surprising then that he is not a fount of sweetness and light. George shares his discomfort, pain and fear through angry, loud, abusive verbal outbursts that include a lot of swearing and are unpleasant and offensive to be on the receiving end of. Which makes George a royal pain in the ass to deal with.

Been there, experienced that, wanted to throttle George.

And while I can understand and sympathize with “I don’t have to put up with being sworn at like that”……..being an obnoxious, loud, verbally abusive, swearing pain in the ass does not deserve the death penalty.

Dumping George onto the streets is imposing the death penalty because in his current state of health he will not survive being homeless on the streets.

Nobody wants to deal with George so they try to dump him on someone else. A situation the Abbotsford Police found themselves caught in when the hospital, which George had been more or less dumped on, phoned the police to remove him for his swearing and angry verbal attacks. Normally, if there is no place to take someone in Abbotsford that someone ends up on the street.

The Abbotsford police ended up taking George to Chilliwack to find a place for him to stay for the night and avoid having George die as a result of being dumped onto the streets by police.

Since them George has been in the hospitals in Chilliwack, in Hope and back in Abbotsford because no one wants to deal with George and get rid of him as soon as they can dump him on someone else.

The homeless community, noting George’s absence and concerned about whether George was alive, enquired about what was going on and what George’s current fate was. They raised the question of ethics when another member of the homeless community supplied information that George had gone from the Chilliwack hospital to the Hope hospital to the Abbotsford hospital where George currently was.

Last year Dallas, who had struggled with drugs and recovery, found himself in the shelter and depressed as he again struggled with addiction. Not the ‘I am so depressed’ that most people have experienced and think of when they hear someone is depressed, but the life sucking black hole that is true DRESSION. Dallas sought help as he spiralled down into DRESSION, at Emergency at the Abbotsford hospital.

Only to be turned away as he hadn’t tried and was not threatening to kill himself or someone else. So he left the hospital and tried to kill himself. Unfortunately he was successful.

Ted’s feet had been frostbitten and not treated. When using Ted is loud, verbally nasty, tries to physically intimidate people and is a bully. When circumstances resulted in me applying antibiotic and bandages to Ted’s foot one evening, the, the black damage of frostbite on his toes together with the bare, open flesh where the frostbite damage had resulted in the loss of skin and flesh was such a concern I managed to get his foot looked at by a nurse the following day.

During the course of the examination Ted stated that his foot was not as painful as it had been. I enquired if that might be because of the high level of drugs he had ingested and he conceded it might be. He knew he could lose toes, foot or leg to the frostbite damage, vowing he would rather die.

Because Ted is a royal pain in the ass and very unpleasant to deal with, Ted is another who the system and society strives not to deal with. Ted did find a rather unique way to get help, robbing a bank in Abbotsford, walking down to the bus stop and having a seat until police arrived to arrest him.

The countdown has already begun for the next person slated to be ignored to death in Abbotsford.

 

“A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members”

Hubert Humphrey

“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.”

Hubert Humphrey