FORCED TREATMENT COULD SAVE LIVES

Society Cannot Look Away From Drug Addicts On The Edge

Few people would think twice about hauling a suicidal person back from
the edge of the train platform, if his intentions are clear. And,
although we have a broadly live-and-let-live society, in which the
value of allowing people to make their own decisions outweighs the
benefits of social control, there are times when getting involved is
the right thing to do.

Such is the case for mandatory drug treatment as an emergency
life-saving intervention. And even more so when the object of the
intervention is so young, his ability to make reasonable decisions may
not have matured as fast as his body.

The subject came up during a professional meeting in Red Deer last
week, when an official with Calgary's Adolescent Addiction Recovery
Centre argued that forcing drug-addicted young people into treatment
centres would help them kick their habits.

The provincial solicitor general's ministry has no plans to introduce
any such legislation, a spokesman said Friday. However, the idea
deserves the ministry's sympathetic consideration because the
consequences of addiction are costly for society and potentially
deadly for the addict.

To be sure, there are practical obstacles to be dealt with, as well as
philosophical objections. Where, for instance, are these young people
to be housed, for how long and under what security conditions? How
much will it cost? Can forced treatment even be effective?

And, the ever-present Charter of Rights lurks in the background.
Someone will try to use it to prevent good being done to them against
their will.

The least of these substantial difficulties, at any rate for Alberta,
is cost. Apart from the province's evident ability to pay, one must
also set against the cost of treatment the cost of doing nothing. Drug
addiction is a seed-bed of crime and prostitution, as people incapable
of working by reason of their addiction find other sources of income.
And, when in desperate straits they end up in hospital or in the hands
of welfare agencies, society effectively ends up intervening anyway,
at higher cost.

On a purely utilitarian calculation, one might as well intervene
early. Those, such as the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, who say
treatment programs are most effective when the people in them want to
be there, have a better case.

However, if one is prepared to accept less than a total success rate,
one might still entertain the idea. A program to remove juvenile
prostitutes from the street to a secure shelter attracted similar
criticism when it was introduced five years ago, yet has been modestly
successful in interrupting patterns of self-destructive behaviour.

Of course, breaking the chains of chemical dependency requires more
than seven weeks change of lifestyle and some tough-love chat from a
counsellor.

One young woman who spoke to the Red Deer conference described how,
after getting hooked on crack at 12 years of age, she had spent 400
days in a psychiatric ward.

That was a big intrusion into her life. But, she added, "If somebody
hadn't stepped in front of me, I don't think I'd be alive today."

Quite. Raising abstractions about civil liberties when a young person
is laying in the gutter is akin to praying for a starving person,
instead of feeding them.

Yes, of course people have a right to commit suicide, quickly or
slowly. But other people have the right -- and the responsibility --
to try to stop them. And, as the state is but the instrument of the
people, it should be used if other tools are not available.