this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
41 points (95.6% liked)

Canada

11707 readers
629 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

With illicit drug use, homelessness and untreated mental illness reaching a crisis in parts of Canada, the governments of at least three provinces want to treat more people against their will, even as some health experts warn involuntary care for drug use can be ineffective and harmful.

This month, British Columbia's premier, whose party is in a tight race for reelection in the province, said his government would expand involuntary treatment for people dealing with mental illness combined with addiction and brain injuries due to overdose. Some would be held in a repurposed jail.

The Alberta government is preparing legislation that would allow a family member, police officer or medical professional to petition to force treatment when a person is deemed an imminent danger to themselves or others because of addiction or drug use.

And New Brunswick has said it wants to allow involuntary treatment of people with substance use disorders, although it, too, has yet to propose legislation. A spokesperson for the governing Progressive Conservative party, which is also running for reelection, called this "compassionate intervention."

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

Robert Tanguay, an addictions psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor at the University of Calgary, supports involuntary care under certain conditions but also stressed more voluntary treatment options are needed.

Tanguay was a member of Alberta's Recovery Expert Advisory Panel that helped shape government policy on addiction and mental health care, and said opinions about the efficacy of involuntary care varied.

"The one thing that was all agreed upon is it has to be done compassionately and in the healthcare system, not in the penal system," Tanguay said. "We can't just incarcerate people using drugs."

This makes sense to me.

There's a risk that police will weaponize an ability to commit someone to involuntary rehab. There's a risk that overdoses might go unreported because people want to avoid being committed to a facility. The question is if these risks will be outweighed by any benefits. I think it's unfortunate that these programs aren't being discussed by political parties in practical terms. There's just a lot of handwaving about whether or not it will 'work', and no real discussion of the objectives and expected outcomes.

[–] parapsyker@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago

Nobody gets clean while sleeping rough.

https://homelesshub.ca/collection/programs-that-work/housing-first/

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/data-visualization-the-evidence-on-housing-first/

And here is a podcast by and about drug users where people speak about their experiences with the system in BC and elsewhere as is has been, is, and is becoming: https://www.crackdownpod.com/ Includes interviews with researchers and doctors.

I have found it extremely worthwhile and necessary listening, but it is heartwrenching.

Nothing about them without them.

[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

This is such a ridiculous proposition. The people who want treatment can’t get it. Are we going to take the overworked doctors away from patients in order to forcibly treat drug addicts?

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem with the current program is that we did a "half Portugal" where we stopped with enforcement because it was cheaper, and also didn't put in funding for support and treatment because because they (the goverment) thought is was cheaper.

The problem with this, knowing that our government is cheap. They'll talk about enforcement, but will be super cheap about it. I'd actually be more worried about this endeavour if I thought they were going to fund it adequately.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A few years ago I would've been pretty disgusted with this, but now with frequent contact with entrenched homeless I think it's needed.

There are those few that just seem to be stuck in addiction and anti-social behavior and permanent incarceration or exile are about the only other options. You'd need some robust safeguards though so that it's only used as that last resort after exhausting other options.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or Canada could fix its social issues to slow down the flow of destitute people.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or Canada could fix

Surely you mean "and"? I may not have been clear in my previous comment but my point is there is a very small minority that can't be helped in the other ways. That doesn't mean you shouldn't also do all the other things since it's just a very small group that can't be helped that way and that'd be silly.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 3 points 1 year ago

The state will do anything but fix the root cause IMHO.

Hence why I don't never shill remedial programs. The regime caused these problems and now using taxpayer money to be the "good" guy.

This scheme here specifically is fucking abominations. Literally recipe for abuse. Nobody will be helped but many people will absued by the system. This is regime 101.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This doesn't help the people already stuck. On these drugs, homeless, and dealing with the mental health issues that come with that is a huge burden, even if we fixed the issuess that push people into these addictions, they may not be able to get out of these situations on their own. Things like getting housed or employed become increasingly difficult when homeless and addicted. Ideally these involuntary treatments include housing treated people and assisting them in getting their own housing and employment.

[–] parapsyker@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

"Ideally these involuntary treatments include housing treated people and assisting them in getting their own housing and employment."

...yeah but they won't, will they?

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

allow a family member, police officer or medical professional to petition to force treatment when a person is deemed an imminent danger to themselves or others because of addiction or drug use

As long as there are some seriously strict requirements that need to be met then it's better than what we have at the moment.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There absolutely will not be.

The intent is to be able to go out, round up the homeless in vans, and toss them into a 'treatment' centre. Taking street drugs is inherently dangerous, and so if you're using, you're eligible. If it turns out that you're clean but have untreated mental health issues, then you'll get held against your will for the safety of those around you.

I mean, they might as well start tracking these people by tattooing them - maybe with a bar code on their wrist.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure how these are different from already existing psych holds?