INSIGHT ON INSITE

Re: "Vancouver's safe injection contradiction in name and deed,"
Susan Martinuk,
Opinion, May 23.

It is rather ironic that Susan Martinuk gets the facts all wrong while
complaining about a lack of credible debate over Insite, Vancouver's
supervised injection site. Martinuk reports there is no supporting
research, but fails to mention that more than 25 studies showing that
Insite works have been published in top medical journals, including
the New England Journal of Medicine. Among these was a study published
in the Lancet showing that Insite users are, contrary to Martinuk's
reporting, 70 per cent less likely to share used needles. Instead,
Martinuk prefers to cite data from the Tories' hand-picked advisory
committee. She also fails to note that when this committee cited
limitations with existing research, they were actually referring to
studies they commissioned -- not the 25 studies published by
researchers from UBC's department of medicine.

Martinuk's "back of the book" analysis regarding overdose is
particularly embarrassing. Did Martinuk consider that reporting
overdoses for all of Vancouver might be inappropriate for a small
pilot facility located in the Downtown Eastside? Did she determine how
many of these overdoses she cites actually involved injection drug
use? Last, did Martinuk consider that more recent coroner's data show
overdose rates in the neighbourhood are down approximately 25 per
cent? Martinuk should leave the research to the experts. Her
error-ridden reporting does nothing to add clarity to the debate
regarding Insite's future.

Thomas Kerr, MD,

Vancouver

Dr. Thomas Kerr is a member of the department of medicine at the
University of British Columbia, who has researched injection drug use.