UCP dons ideological blinders on opioid crisis

It was one of the more significant news releases from the Alberta government in recent weeks — or even months — and yet not only did it not warrant any formal news conference, the information was released in the midst of the federal throne speech.

The information in question concerned the shocking number of opioid-related overdose deaths so far this year in Alberta. At least 449 Albertans have died in 2020 as a result of the opioid overdose crisis, with 301 of those deaths occurring between April and June.

By any standard, that represents a health-care crisis. And yet, there doesn't appear to be any sense of urgency from the government in addressing it.

The government's response to these numbers was primarily to reiterate the steps it has taken to improve access to addiction and recovery services. And while those steps are necessary and commendable, the government's continued aversion to harm reduction remains an obstacle to saving lives and addressing this crisis.

Why is it so difficult to have empathy and compassion for those who have lost their lives to addiction and for the families left to grieve these losses? The moralistic and judgmental approach to the question of drug addiction plays a huge role in the stigma that surrounds addiction and the corresponding absence of empathy and compassion.

The Alberta government is guilty of its own moralizing on this issue. If we really want to save lives and to more effectively respond to this crisis, the government needs to put its ideology aside and be open to evidence.

One example of this is the declaration by Jason Luan, associate minister of mental health and addiction, that Alberta's approach “does not, and will not, include the unethical supply of taxpayer-funded hard drugs to support addiction.”

The vast majority of opioid overdose deaths in Alberta this year were linked to fentanyl. It is therefore almost a certainty that if many of those 449 Albertans had access to a safer supply they would not be dead. One could argue that the true “unethical” approach is the one that simply involves more of the same.

The opposition to any sort of safe supply option is not based on any sort of cost-benefit analysis or any sort of review of the evidence. It's simply a knee-jerk, ideological “drugs are bad” position.

What if, for example, such an approach could save lives? What if, for example, such an approach could have better outcomes for individuals? What if, for example, such an approach were actually cost-effective?

The evidence is actually rather compelling. The Alberta government, however, doesn't even seem interested in looking at the evidence. They've already got their minds made up.

In 2018, the Rand Corp. released a study reviewing the available evidence around what's known as heroin-assisted treatment (HAT). It found, for example, evidence of positive outcomes for those who had “tried (and failed with) traditional treatment modalities.” In fact, the “strongest and most consistent effects” were shown for “reducing illicit heroin use and improving treatment retention.”

In purely economic terms, heroin-assisted treatment was found to be “more cost-beneficial for clients who are refractory to standard treatments, largely through HAT'S effect on reducing criminal activity.”

There would obviously be a need to carefully craft such a strategy and ensure that we were targeting those who would benefit the most from such an approach. The same experts who are now pleading with the government to consider this could surely assist to that end — if there was a willingness on the government's part to hear them out.

Sadly, we know it's not going to happen. We've already seen how supervised consumption sites, which also save lives, have been undermined and cut by the government. They are very much entrenched in their position.

Too many people are dying. If there are approaches that can reduce those numbers, let's at least be open to the evidence. That doesn't seem unreasonable.