A major flaw in Tony Clement’s claim of "harm addition"
The federal government’s opposition to Insite, Vancouver’s supervised-injection facility, has long baffled Canadian scientists, health professionals and social workers. Now, Canada’s Health Minister has managed to perplex an international audience as well. (Source: Globe & Mail editorial: An illogical Statement)
At the XVII International AIDS Conference in Mexico City, Health Minister Tony Clement said: “Allowing and/or encouraging people to inject heroin into their veins is not harm reduction, it is the opposite … We believe it is a form of harm addition” (Source: ‘Clement’s Insite attack leaves WHO red-faced, Globe & Mail).
Putting aside all of the scientific evidence that supports the “reduction in harms” from InSite1 for a just moment, I would like to point out the major flaw in Tony Clement’s statement. The word “addition” suggests that something (in this case, “harm”) that wasn’t there already is being “added.” So saying that having a supervised injection site such as Vancouver’s Insite is “harm addition,” suggests that in the absence of Insite, those harms weren’t there. Is Clement suggesting that people who use injection drugs weren’t subject to harms (such as HIV or hepatitis infections, drug addiction, negative effects of drugs on the body, or risk of overdose death) before Insite existed, and thus Insite is a “adding” these harms to the situation? Or is he suggesting that people who weren’t using injection drugs before are now starting to use drugs because Insite exists, thus adding those harms to their lives? Of course not. He’s making a stupid play on words to hype a misguided opposition to supervised injection sites. Why? Because, despite the Conservatives’ claims to the contrary, he can’t back his views with science.
For a summary of the research findings on InSite, click here. Or just check the peer-reviewed scienctific literature – it’s all in there!
And for one of the best articles I’ve read on Vancouver’s supervised injection site, check out Dr. Stephen Hwang’s paper “Science and Ideology” in Open Medicine.
1Of which there is, unequivocally, plenty.