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.”

  • voluble
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months 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.