Benefits Of Safe Injections Sites

Moreover, NEPs will provide sterile needle and syringes to avoid exchanges of used injections between drug users. Since NEPs are implemented, the number of HIV cases and other diseases are declined. In Saskatchewan, distributing needles reduces the total costs for health care because needle exchange programs reduce the transmission of HIV by one-third and accommodate a return of four thousand dollars investment in health care costs. (Thompson) Needle exchange program provide safety not only in drug addicts but also provide safety in the community. Many of needle exchange programs perform a one-for-one basis to decrease the exposure of contaminated needles in streets and playgrounds so that children and other people are away from needle sticks accident. (Franciscus)

Portugal's success would be the ideal model for Canada to base decriminalization of illicit drugs. Although Canada does not have as much of a drug epidemic that Portugal had before decriminalization, statistics show the country has rising rates of both heroin and meth use. Treating this evident problem with a different approach has been gathering heavy support over the years. Support behind this legal movement in Canada includes the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and the Green Party of Canada. Not only were drugs decriminalized in Portugal, the entire system was reconstructed to aid those addicted. Both the reduce in law enforcement towards illicit drugs and the increase in funding towards treatment paid off greatly for Portugal. Overdose death went down by 72% while the spread of HIV went down by 94%. Canada has prioritized the war on drugs, although the method being followed does not prove effective. It might prove better to abandon this current war in favour for public health, following Portugal's lead in providing harm reduction treatment and treating the addiction as the public health crisis that it

This paper will discuss the Canadian healthcare system compared to the United States healthcare system. Although they’re close in proximity, these two nations have very different health care systems. Each healthcare system has its own difficulties, and is currently trying to find ways to improve. Canada currently uses the Universal Health Care system; which provides healthcare coverage to all Canadian citizens (Canadian Health Care, 2007). The services are executed on both a territorial and provincial basis, by staying within the guidelines that have been enforced by the federal government (Canadian Health Care, 2007).

In Canada the services, medication and hospital fee are controlled by the government, this created a better outcome for the security of the citizen. This regulation can lead to major saving in term of the GDP per capita paid by the government in this regard. The government negotiates drug prices so by doing that prices are more affordable for the people. It’s not necessary the uses of co-pays and deductible, but if any type of charged for any reason this can still be a dissent price by the patient. As result of this Canadian are proud and feel secured by the contribution of the social

Safe injection sites are a controversial issue in Canada, and have been for a long time. As society grows more and more comfortable with the idea of legalizing certain drugs, the attitude towards these safe injection sites changes. This change affects laws, politics, and society in general and is a legal and moral issue. Insite, the first safe injection site in North America, opened in 2003 in Vancouver, British Columbia to a mass of controversy that induced legislative, legal, and moral change worthy of observation and investigation. This paper will first introduce the concept of safe injection sites as well as an explanation of the harm principle in which these sites operate under, then introduce Insite, the first safe injection site opened in North America, along with appropriate statistical evidence that proves its effectiveness, followed by the issues brought up by opponents of these sites will be discussed as well as the landmark Supreme Court case that allowed for their continued existence, and finally an overview of the current legislation that threatens it.

It is suggested that since Insite was created, it has been sending the wrong message to the youth of Vancouver stating that injection drug use is acceptable and has support. This approach is unlikely and naïve. There is evidence shown that the total number of drug users in cities with SIS’s has decreased. The introduction of SISs is being understood as that drug use is right. Rather than it is limited, self-contained, and is a

The ethical implications of the Canadian government funding and supporting these projects, considering current drug laws and policies, are questioned by some. People believe that the government should not participate in enabling drug use (Globe & Mail, (2011) and that zero tolerance approaches should be taken. In opposition to zero tollerance attitudes some

Harm reduction can be defined as an approach that aims to reduce the consequences of high risk behaviours such as injection drug use on the individual and on society as a whole. Harm reduction programs provide injection drug users with access to a clean injection environment, sterile injections, drug-preparation equipment and safe disposal of contaminated material at the time of injection. Staff members in harm reduction facilities provide health teaching, anonymous HIV testing, information on addiction treatment, condoms and assist in connecting clients to social and health services (Semaan et al., 2011; Ball, 2007). Although, the benefits of harm reduction are evident through reduction of accidental drug overdose and prevention of

Who would be providing these drugs? Drug dealers? Pharmacists? The safe injection sites would just be a “clean alternative to alleys and shabby rooms to shoot up” (Katel). The drug dealers would just have more of a market to be able to make their living and they would not be punished for it now. The new “safe injection sites are yet another proposal that would have the government subsidize the addictive drug industry” (Johnson). The government would not be able to say anything about the drug deals taking place, because they are essentially funding it. These safe injection sites are “just another way to help dealers sell their drugs in the guise of being ‘safe’”

Safe injection sites possess many salutary benefits related to public health safety of the drug using community. Safe injection sites provide a safe place for drug users to inject drugs into their bodies so they do not have to reuse needles and can also be supervised by nurses constantly while they do so. Insite is the sole safe injection site in all of Canada and the expansion of other facilities has been fiercely contested by policy makers not due to empirical criminological evidence, but simply due to one dimensional classical conservatism inspired ideology and illogical hysteria. The fear propagated by the past Conservative government that by assisting drug users by feeding their addiction and by gathering so many law breakers in concentrated areas would correlate to an increased rate in crime. The traditionalistic ideology of the Conservative government mandated them to adamantly oppose the prospect of safe injection sites let alone their expansion into other regions and provinces regardless of the fact that there were no adverse effects for the community in terms of increased crime. Safe injection sites were introduced to Vancouver in 2003 under a special exemption under section 56 under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which was granted by the Liberal government via Health Canada as a desperate means to help resolve the growing health concerns in the area. In 1998, a report by then British Columbia public health officer John Millar decried the situation in the

     In the past, Canada’s government-funded, universally accessible, health care system has been praised and admired both at home and abroad as one of the finest in the world. A great source of pride and comfort for many Canadians is that it is based on five fundamental principles. Principles that are a reflection of the values held by Canadian citizens since the formation of Medicare in 1966. These principles were reinforced in the Canada Health Act, (CHA), of 1984 and state that the Canadian system is universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive and non-profit.

Insite, a supervised injection site, that first came about in 2003 to provide community members with safe and sterile products and a better place for the injection of drugs (Insite Supervised Injection, Home section, 2011, para. 1). After almost a decade, the issue still continues whether Insite should exist or close down? According to many sources, there is no clear cut on whether Insite decreases the death rate or actually increases the usage of drugs. There are so many things that could be argued about and both sides seem easily agreeable. However, personally speaking, I believe that Insite should be allowed and further expanded throughout Canada. Insite provides an opportunity for the community members with a safe place of injection, counseling services, and lastly decreases the spread diseases and infections. Furthermore, Insite should be expanded and government should not be allowed to decide whether this service should continue or not.

The Canada Healthcare act [R.S. 1985, c. C-6] passed in 1984. It ensures that all residents of Canada have an equal access to necessary physician services, no extra billing from physicians and hospital. The act is on five main principles, Public administration necessary services are to offer on a non-profit basis. Next, accessibility coverage with no extra charges and comprehensiveness coverage for all medically necessary services at all times. Portability coverage is to extend to all residents in all provinces and territories. The fifth principle is universality coverage for all eligible residents of all provinces and territories (SEDAP, 2007).

Canada’s health care system “can be described as a publicly-funded, privately-provided, universal, comprehensive, affordable, single-payer, provincially administered national health care system” (Bernard, 1992, p.103). Health care in Canada is provincial responsibility, with the Canada Health act being a federal legislation (Bernard, 1992, p. 102). Federal budget cuts, has caused various problems within Medicare such as increased waiting times and lack of new technology. Another problem with Medicare is that The Canada Heath Act does not cover expenditures for prescriptions drugs. All these issue has caused individuals to suggest making Medicare privatized. Although, Canada’s health care system consists of shortcomings, our universal

Health services for people who inject drugs are subject to ‘considerable community concern and media and political attention’ (MSIC Evaluation Committee, 2003, p. 177). The development of a policy network, in July 1997 involved a multiplicity of actors who played an important role in the policy process. A NSW Parliamentary Joint Select Committee of ‘public and private spheres’ (Dennis, 2013, p. 78) was established to consider the feasibility for a trial of a MSIC. The Committee extensively reviewed the arguments contending for and arguing against proposals for a trial, and a suitable location. Copious submissions and evidence was put forward to the Committee with many advocators endorsing the action commenting that ‘injecting rooms may contribute to the reduction in the number of fatal and non-fatal overdoses by providing access to resuscitation and disseminating information about safer using practices’ (Parliament of New South Wales, 1998, p. 82).