THE BATTLE OVER INSITE

The Science Is Clear and the Benefits Are Real. So Why Is the Debate
Over the Future of the Injection Site Perpetuated?

Nearing the end of its sixteen-month extension, Insite, North
America's only supervised injection site, is wondering whether or not
it will have the renewed legal status needed to continue offering
health services past December 31, 2007. The latest question being
asked is, Who's jurisdiction does Insite fall under?

The recent court action launched by the Portland Hotel Community
Services Society and two plaintiffs who are users of Insite's
services argue that it should not be in the hands of the federal
government. Though a substantial amount of scientific evidence
reflecting the outcomes of Insite's services has been provided to
Health Minister Tony Clement and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, both
remain resistant to making a clear decision. "What's the hold up?"
people are asking.

Failure to address this crucial matter regarding one of Vancouver's
most sensitive social issues has raised votes of non-confidence in
the federal government across the board.

The court action, spearheaded by well-known human rights lawyer
Joseph Arvay, served on August 17, 2007, argues two main points.

The first point declares that, according to the Constitution Act of
1867, subsection 91 & 92, there is a distribution between the
provinces and the federal government of legislative powers to create
laws and establish services based on provincial needs in the best
interest of its citizens.

Since Insite is incorporated into, and supported by, the provincial
health system, Vancouver Coastal Health authority should be able to
act as designates of the legal exemption from penalties on the
grounds of a medical and scientific purpose for Insite to continue operating.

The second point furthers this claim by declaring under the
Consitution Act of 1982, which includes the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedom, that if an individual's rights to life and
security of the person are being infringed upon, and not in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, the individual
has a right to challenge this in the courts.

If Insite closes, the government could potentially be putting many
lives at risk. Insite's services are complementary to other health
clinics in the downtown area catering to people with addictions.
Though a variety of services exist, still many users are not
receiving the attention they need. At Insite, attention to wound care
and infection control can be managed, as well as access to counselors
and referrals to other agencies.

Insite also teaches health and safety to users by providing clean
supplies and information on practicing health-conscious use while
trying to manage addiction.

Before this case was launched the main factor influencing the status
of the injection site depended on the ability of an Expert Advisory
Committee (EAC) appointed by Health Canada to grant six groups of
researchers funds to conduct secondary analysis of the twenty-four
studies already published.

The researchers would be expected to do this in a meager three or
four months. This secondary analysis would help Health Minister
Clement decide if Insite "helped people get off drugs." The research
grants were allotted as of September 2007, and the deadline given is
February 2008. This can almost guarantee users another two months
extension while the conclusions are being assessed by Health Canada.
If Health Canada denies Insite the legal exemption they need to
operate, this new court action will help give Insite the leverage
they need to fight for their right to exist, as they can petition the
courts to order Insite to remain active until the matter is resolved.
This case will proceed regardless of the activity of the EAC.

The main incentive behind this case is to get Stephen Harper to see
the value behind harm reduction-based services.

Other objectives in the case address the value and respect of
peer-reviewed research as a means to guide policy-making, as well as
setting a precedent concerning provincial health matters needing
federal approval, like creating a niche for harm reduction or the
ability of each province to create services based on the needs of
their own population.

No one's health issue should become a political game. This is why a
small, organized group called Insite for Community Safety have been
running a campaign geared towards educating the public and gathering
public responses on the topic of injection sites.

There are seventy-six injection facilities in eight different
countries around the world, some established as early as 1976. It is
not a new idea, nor is it of questionable success.

The science, no matter what language it comes in, provides the same
answers: injection sites are a positive solution.