WHOSE ETHICS SHOULD BE QUESTIONED?

Canada's health minister may contend he's merely asking questions about the
wisdom of safe-injection sites for drug addicts, and not questioning the
ethics of doctors and nurses who support them, but that's not what it
sounds like.

If it sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck, and it sounds like Tony
Clement is indeed questioning the ethics of those who support
safe-injection sites such as Vancouver's Insite clinic.

"I'm simply asking a question. It's up to the doctors to answer it," he
said in response to anger stirred up by his comments that safe-injection
sites could be a "slippery slope" towards other officially-sanctioned drug use.

During a speech at the annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association
(CMA), Clement raised the spectre of other drug users demanding their own
'harm-reduction' programs. Will the government be required to provide
"safe-inhalation rooms?"

The answer, in short, is no. It's only a slippery slope if we allow it to
become one. It's ludicrous to think a perfectly reasonable approach to drug
addiction could result in some sort of narcotic free-for-all. That's not
going to happen.

Insite is a street-level initiative designed to not only help drug addicts,
but also to be a community program that reduces crime and disease
associated with drug addiction. And, according to those who should know,
the doctors, it works.

The CMA's president, Dr. Brian Day, says safe-injection sites and
harm-reduction programs work, and that illegal drug use and the spread of
disease are being curbed through programs like Insite, which provide
medical supervision to addicts injecting their own drugs.

Fully 79 per cent of CMA members support safe-injection sites and
harm-reduction programs, says Day. That's a rather ringing endorsement that
makes Clement's concerns sound all the more uninformed.

The Conservatives have had Insite in their crosshairs for some time. The
government is appealing a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling that said
sections of Canada's drug laws are unconstitutional because they prevent
the operation of programs like Insite. Clearly, for the government Insite
and other such programs go against the grain. Their opposition, then,
appears to be ideological.

But in the face of such overwhelming support from the medical community for
safe-injection sites and harm-reduction programs, and proof that they work,
Clement and the government may want to consider their own ethics in
challenging them.