News (Media Awareness Project) - CN SN: PUB LTE: Pluses And Minuses In Youth Detox Law |
Title: | CN SN: PUB LTE: Pluses And Minuses In Youth Detox Law |
Published On: | 2006-05-09 |
Source: | Regina Leader-Post (CN SN) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-14 05:34:46 |
PLUSES AND MINUSES IN YOUTH DETOX LAW
Regarding the article, "Youth detox law trashed" in the April 26
Leader- Post, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Children's Advocate has got it only partly right. The legislation
providing for an involuntary intervention when youth abuse substances
to the extent that they might be a harm to themselves or others might
not be "enlightened" (quoting the Children's Advocate), but neither
is it draconian.
As a society, we restrict peoples' rights all the time, especially
those of children and youth, respecting that their maturity level
(the capacity to make informed decisions) is different from that of
adults. The "new" law is an extension of legislation that has been
around for decades, the Mental Health Act -- had that act been used
to intervene in severe addiction problems affecting young people,
there would have been no need to construct new legislation.
Where the new legislation falls short, and where the Children's
Advocate has got it right, is that the application of the new
legislation is a patchwork attempt and takes a health problem and
criminalizes it (the intervention is at the Paul Dojack Youth Centre
in the south; I know new facilities are being built, but again, it's
a patchwork attempt). Involuntary care should not be in a locked
facility, should only be for the protection of life (either the
youth's or that of others) and should be part of an array of services
based in the community; and, involuntary care should only be
sanctioned by a trained physician(s).
There needs to be legislation providing for life-threatening
situations, when youth high on drugs and alcohol threaten themselves
or the community. The government fell short when its first priority
was involuntary care rather than an array of community services, of
which involuntary care should be a small part. Let's not throw the
baby out with the bathwater, we need community based interventions,
specifically geared to young people and a way of keeping them safe IF
they pose a threat to themselves or others.
Hirsch Greenberg
Greenberg is with the department of justice studies at the University of Regina.
Regarding the article, "Youth detox law trashed" in the April 26
Leader- Post, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Children's Advocate has got it only partly right. The legislation
providing for an involuntary intervention when youth abuse substances
to the extent that they might be a harm to themselves or others might
not be "enlightened" (quoting the Children's Advocate), but neither
is it draconian.
As a society, we restrict peoples' rights all the time, especially
those of children and youth, respecting that their maturity level
(the capacity to make informed decisions) is different from that of
adults. The "new" law is an extension of legislation that has been
around for decades, the Mental Health Act -- had that act been used
to intervene in severe addiction problems affecting young people,
there would have been no need to construct new legislation.
Where the new legislation falls short, and where the Children's
Advocate has got it right, is that the application of the new
legislation is a patchwork attempt and takes a health problem and
criminalizes it (the intervention is at the Paul Dojack Youth Centre
in the south; I know new facilities are being built, but again, it's
a patchwork attempt). Involuntary care should not be in a locked
facility, should only be for the protection of life (either the
youth's or that of others) and should be part of an array of services
based in the community; and, involuntary care should only be
sanctioned by a trained physician(s).
There needs to be legislation providing for life-threatening
situations, when youth high on drugs and alcohol threaten themselves
or the community. The government fell short when its first priority
was involuntary care rather than an array of community services, of
which involuntary care should be a small part. Let's not throw the
baby out with the bathwater, we need community based interventions,
specifically geared to young people and a way of keeping them safe IF
they pose a threat to themselves or others.
Hirsch Greenberg
Greenberg is with the department of justice studies at the University of Regina.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...