Safe consumption sites a key part of our health care
The evidence worldwide is clear, Marilou Gagnon writes.
In 2018, the then newly formed UCP released a policy declaration and under “Health,” affirmed its commitment to “a health-care system that is universal and comprehensive, preventive rather than reactive, ethical and accountable, sustainable and cost-effective, accessible and portable, that blends public, non-profit, and private-sector provisions, and implements effective strategies that will lead to a world-class system with improved quality of life.”
However, since taking office, the UCP government has made announcements that run counter to this commitment.
In June, the UCP government announced it would halt funding for new supervised consumption sites. This reignited the debate about these sites and fuelled the idea that they need additional review — or that they somewhat operate outside the health-care system. For people who use drugs, the sites are part of a universal and comprehensive health-care system. They are part of standard, evidence-based care. Supervised consumption sites exist along with services ranging from harm reduction to treatment. In fact, they constitute a primary entry point into the health-care system and increase the likelihood that someone will access treatment. Access to treatment, which is an objective of the UCP government, typically begins in these sites.
Supervised consumption sites are preventive rather than reactive. They prevent overdoses and prevent overdose-related deaths or complications. Because of this, they reduce healthcare utilization and costs.
Most importantly, they keep people alive. Evidence from more than 150 sites across the world has shown us that it is better to invest in prevention of overdoses rather than reacting to overdoses after the fact. Between January 2018 and March 2019, supervised consumption sites in Calgary, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Grande Prairie and Red Deer recorded more than 315,000 visits and reversed over 3,500 overdoses. Because only a small percentage of overdoses require a transfer to a hospital
Health-care decisions should not be made based on the beliefs, values and priorities of a political party.
setting, these sites not only save lives, they save costs. Alberta being the second most affected province by Canada’s overdose crisis, it would be fiscally irresponsible not to fund and support new supervised consumption sites.
The UCP says it is committed to implementing “effective strategies that will lead to a world-class system with improved quality of life,” but it fails to see that this goal is unattainable as long as this overdose crisis continues. It also fails to recognize that supervised consumption sites are effective strategies that keep people alive — while also improving health outcomes, access to health care and support, and yes, quality of life. For the first time in more than four decades, life expectancy is going down in Canada due to the overdose crisis. This is true for Alberta as well — and men under 40 are particularly affected. In fact, 77 per cent of the people who died of an overdose in 2017 were men under 40. If these tragic deaths continue, it will be impossible for the UCP government to develop a “world-class healthcare system.” Furthermore, it will be impossible to reach an improvement in quality of life in Alberta no matter the amount invested.
It goes without saying that denying people who use drugs access to health care services on the basis of ideology is far from meeting the requirements of an ethical and accountable health-care system. This is creating a dangerous precedent for Alberta. Health-care decisions should not be made based on the beliefs, values and priorities of a political party. They should be informed by scientific evidence, expertise, and the needs of the affected communities. As the UCP government is ramping up the debate on supervised consumption sites, there is a risk for the public to jump on the bandwagon. Instead, Albertans should ask themselves: If the UCP government was so quick to turn its back on its own commitment to health, what does this mean for me? For my family, for my community? Now is not the time to get lost in a debate that has been strategically amplified for political gain.