DETOX CONCERNS SEEM OVERSTATED

Any time two independent officers of the legislature express urgent
and grave concerns that a law holds the potential to infringe on the
fundamental rights of those it ostensibly seeks to protect, it's time
to pay close attention.

In the case of the Youth Drug Detoxification and Stabilization Act,
which took effect on April 1 in Saskatchewan and allows parents or
guardians of drug-addicted youths aged between 12 and 17 years of age
to place them involuntarily in short-term detoxification programs,
however, the cautions of the provincial privacy commissioner and
children's advocate need to be assessed in the context of what
legislators are trying to achieve.

In a special report last week, Saskatchewan Children's Advocate,
Marvin Bernstein, raises concerns that the law (Healthy Living
Services Minister Graham Addley, who consulted extensively in
developing it describes it as "a last resort for those who require a
drastic intervention") violates the individual rights not only of the
young persons involuntarily being apprehended for treatment, but also
of their parents.

Bernstein raises specific concerns about the act allowing undefined
persons in a "close personal relationship" to initiate apprehension
of a drug addicted youth. He's worried that allowing a teacher,
coach, religious minister, concerned neighbour or even a disgruntled
former partner in a custody dispute to take action could harm family
reputations or damage the future of children.

The reality is that in Saskatchewan, all those adults he mentions,
including police, whether they are in a close relationship or not,
are required by law to inform authorities if they suspect child
abuse. Whatever the potential harm to family reputations, an
investigation follows to determine if the child is being harmed, and
any necessary corrective action is taken.

It's a huge stretch for Bernstein to suggest that concerned adults
should be treated any differently when it comes to trying to prevent
a child being harmed from a drug addiction -- especially when the
involuntary apprehension for detoxification requires approval by a
judge at a court hearing, with concurrence by two physicians as to
the existence of a severe problem that needs such drastic action --
or that there will be a sudden spate of mischief-making or vengeful
complaints by unscrupulous persons.

Politicians in Saskatchewan, as with their counterparts in Manitoba
and Alberta who've also taken similar legislative steps, were
responding to requests for help from parents who face an epidemic of
crystal meth addictions that are ruining young lives in both urban
and rural areas.

While Bernstein and privacy commissioner Gary Dickson make several
sensible recommendations to improve Saskatchewan's law, their stance
is undermined by raising the questionable spectre of police forcing
youths into entering a detoxification process by holding the threat
of criminal sanctions over them, or involuntarily confining them
until two consenting physicians can be located. Judicial supervision
and, in many cases, parental involvement, mitigates against such
strong-arm tactics.

As to concerns about violations of the right of young persons to
participate in decisions being made about them, free legal counsel to
represent their interest from the moment of apprehension, and age
discrimination in the process that guides a post-apprehension
hearing, it must be kept in mind that the law was enacted to deal
with the best interest of legal minors who are in crisis, and "may be
the least coherent and most vulnerable," as Bernstein notes.

In many cases, the applications for involuntary detoxification orders
will come from parents or guardians of youth who've tried other
measures to no avail. Appointing lawyers to pit children in crisis
against distraught parents helps no one, ignores that parents of
minors get a say on their medical treatment and that children,
especially those in a meth-induced paranoid state, need some
immediate guidance.

However, Bernstein and Dickson are absolutely right to question the
lack of anything resembling an actual treatment process to address
the addiction that would follow the short-term detoxification
program, and the safeguarding and control of information gathered
during the apprehension process. Dickson wonders whether youths or
families will have the right to modify or correct any false
information gathered, how long the information will follow the young
person, and whether it will become part of an individual's record
that can be accessed by education institutions or employers.

Good questions all, and issues that yet are to be addressed by
legislators. But it's also best to keep in mind the new law is a
measure of last resort, and parents given a chance to test it out
before anyone jumps to harsh conclusions.