Pubdate: Sun, 07 Dec 2014
Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC)
Page: C3
Copyright: 2014 Times Colonist
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/letters.html
Website: http://www.timescolonist.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/481
Author: Dr. W. Gifford-Jones

DO ADDICTS DESERVE HEROIN OR EXILE?

How would I react if I were dying of terminal cancer and none of the
current painkillers could ease my agony? Or if I were suffering day
after day the pain of crippling arthritis and no medication relieved
my misery? And then I read that addicts were granted prescription
heroin to treat their addiction.

I'd be damn annoyed that this painkiller was available for addicts but
not for cancer victims and others dying in pain.

Several years ago I wrote that I'd send addicts to chop wood in
Northern Canada. That would surely solve their addiction.

I thought I'd receive a ton of mail calling me a "Hard-Hearted
Hannah." Most of the readers who responded, however, were
overwhelmingly in favour of this suggestion.

Just how sick are the addicts now being treated in Canada with
prescription heroin? Theodore Dalrymple, a British prison doctor and
psychiatrist, treated addicts for years. In his book, Romancing
Opiates, he writes that heroin is not nearly as addictive as is
claimed, and that withdrawal is not medically serious.

He has strong evidence to support his remarks. Dalrymple says he has
seen addicts laughing in his waiting room. But once inside his
consulting room they appear to be in extremis. And when taken to task
for this sudden change of health, they admit they were "blagging."

I have never treated addicted prisoners but I share Dalrymple's
view.

In 1980, during my attempt to legalize heroin for terminal cancer
patients, I visited English hospitals and witnessed cancer patients
being prescribed huge doses of heroin to ease pain. Specialists told
me they could be weaned off heroin in a few weeks if there was a
remission of the cancer.

Dalrymple is not a lover of government intervention. He claims the
medical bureaucracy established to deal with addicts has been useless
and costly.

I agreed with Rona Ambrose, minister of health, who refused to allow
prescription heroin for a Vancouver addiction clinic. But advocates
for the centre argued that addicts have constitutional rights to
life-saving treatment.

The Supreme Court in British Columbia granted an injunction, and now
120 addicted people will be seen two to three times a day to receive
heroin. I would suggest that terminal cancer patients dying in agony
should have the same rights. But they are denied them.

Is there a solution to the problem of addiction in North
America?

Singapore has one. When you travel to Singapore, you are handed a card
on arrival that states "Death to Drug Traffickers." It's a very clear,
concise message.

During my visit to Singapore to investigate this matter, authorities
delivered another clear message for North Americans. They complained
we had become "irresponsibly permissive" about illicit drugs. I could
not agree more.

Because of permissive laws, we spend huge amounts of money on people
who abuse their own bodies, and then expect first-class medical care
while responsible citizens wait in line for treatment.

In 1984, the use of medical heroin was made legal for terminal cancer
patients. But bureaucratic regulations attached to its prescription
made it so difficult for doctors to prescribe that little was used,
and the pharmaceutical company finally stopped importing it from
England. I hope bureaucrats will remember these restrictions if they
themselves ever suffer from terminal cancer pain.

Do I have empathy for those who have self-inflicted disease by abusing
their bodies with heroin? I would have more if we had unlimited
dollars for medical care, but the stark reality is we are running out
of health-care funds. So until others who are dying in agony and in
desperate need of medical care receive it, providing heroin for
addicts would be the last obligation on my list.

The problem is not just heroin. Contacts tell me many residents of
halfway houses routinely spend government subsidies on crack cocaine.

Some become pregnant and deliver children with brain damage. Surely
our Charter of Rights and Freedoms should protect these children.
Commonsense could prevent many of these tragedies.

Until it rules, I'd send addicts to chop wood in Northern Canada. What
do you think?  
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D