The Pot Calling the Kettle Black
Dr. Hwang seems to assert that those disagreeing with the philosophy and approach of harm reduction in the form it has taken in Canada ignore science in favour of ideology. I strongly challenge this line of thinking. I am one such who opposes INSITE and its parent philosophy. At the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I recently undertook a critical look at the published evaluations of INSITE. A form of my report may be read at
www.globaldrugpolicy.org . This major stakeholder wanted a look at INSITE from outside the body of supporters and proponents, which include the evaluators of this trial programme. On careful review of the published findings I was taken aback by the level of overstating findings, underreporting or ignoring negative findings, reporting of straw horse results, and the fact that clearly the programme was not having the impact that was being suggested in press releases and in the media. I would invite readers to go and review carefully and objectively those evaluations as well as my own report. This promotion of INSITE in spite of tepid and non-findings, as well as outright untruths published in the media and at the least not corrected by the scientists involved, suggests that in fact the very thing Dr Hwang accuses others of, is alive and well among those supporting INSITE and its parent philosophy. I would argue that harm reduction as ideology has and continues to interfere with the objectivity of researchers and civil servants alike. Here in Vancouver we are commonly seeing other approaches such as treatment and incidence reducing prevention neglected and ignored. Many of the persons responsible for drug policy and research in BC and in Canada are affiliated with or support the ideology of legalizing drugs and the organizations that press for it such as the Harm Reduction Network of Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. I say with confidence that Canadian drug policy has become vulnerable to the legalization movement and in varying degrees to libertarianism. As one working in the addictions field, I have found repeatedly that harm reduction in Canada is itself an ideology and it is suppressing through self-selection the open dialogue, debate, and honest pursuit of the truth that we need.
Dr. Hwang is right about a nation being at risk, but the risk comes not from those opposing INSITE because of its ineffectiveness, costly diversion of effort, and ignoring of innovation and resources for much needed treatment. It comes from those who set themselves up as being objective while pursuing an ideologically based agenda, declare opponents as ideologues, and shut their minds to the facts. Dr. Colin Mangham Population Health P5romotion Associates Director of ResearchDrug Prevention network of Canada.
ISSN 1911-2092
Sign in
