Morally What Are Your Views About Safe Drug Injection Sites?

[centurionguard]

Recently the Canadian Supreme Court made a presidential ruling over the heads of the federal government to legally allow Drug Injection users a safe place to inject their illegal drugs such as cocaine, crack, and heroin for Drug Users.

This means federal and provincial government coffers across Canada will have to make access for a safe allocated place for Drug Users to inject illegal drugs. As of now Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada is the first of many to set up such establishments.

I wonder how this sits morally from the Catholic Church position? Some say its humane because it allows a Registered Nurse on site to monitor against overdose and by offering clean needles to help prevent HIV infection.

This is practically the same as some known Christian Organizations offering Condoms to any one who is sexually active to reduce the risk of HIV infection.

Are all Humane acts seen as the morally Christian thing to do?
I’m certainly having mixed views. More like Moral Relativism at its best.

What are your thoughts from a morally Catholic prospective?

ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110930/supreme-court-insite-safe-injection-site-110930/

scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html

vancouversun.com/health/Supreme+Court+Insite+decision+sends+mixed+messages/5530695/story.html

ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE78T2ZE20110930

 

[manualman]

Enabling self destructive behaviors isn’t compassion. It’s false compassion at best.

It’s just another example of the trend in our culture towards stating that people should have the right to absolute license in their behavior without any responsibility for the consequences.

 

[anp1215]

Interesting…I have never heard of such a thing. When I opened this thread, I thought it was going to be about “needle exchange” (which I don’t have much of a problem with) but this is very different. It seems to encourage the illegal behavior at the taxpayer’s expense, and to open the government to lawsuits should anything happen to the drug user. So a nurse “monitors” them after they shoot up, but how does she actually know what they are shooting up? I’m assuming they don’t do a lab test on everybody’s drugs when they come in…

Also, would most drug users even come to this place? I think most drug addicts don’t put their personal safety first, evidenced by the fact that many engage in a lot of high risk behavior…I can’t really picture a heroin addict saying “Wait guys…don’t shoot that yet…down the street there’s this awesome place where we can get totally strung out and a nurse will watch us the whole time. Let’s go!”

Just seems like more negatives than positives…

 

[Newbie2]

I thought “Safe Drug Injection sites” was the site on the body where the drug was injected. Interesting, I thought.

Enabling, methinks, not a good idea.

 

[Bearontherun]

I think we need to remember that these drugs are extremely addictive. As far as I know, people using them cannot go off “cold turkey” without serious health risks. I would hope that any of these injection sites would offer support for people trying to get off the drugs and counseling on how to do so more safely. I agree that enabling is not good, but I hope that most people attending these sites will receive some sort of coaching and resources for how to safely beat their addictions.

 

[centurionguard]

aroI think we need to remember that these drugs are extremely addictive. As far as I know, people using them cannot go off “cold turkey” without serious health risks. I would hope that any of these injection sites would offer support for people trying to get off the drugs and counseling on how to do so more safely. I agree that enabling is not good, but I hope that most people attending these sites will receive some sort of coaching and resources for how to safely beat their addictions.

but I hope that most people attending these sites will receive some sort of coaching and resources for how to safely beat their addictions.

Actually they do get coaching from Nursing staff. The dilemma is getting them to quite.
This too can be costly because it involves Rehab Centers for Alcoholics and Drug Addicts.
And these Rehab centers are always full which means wait times. Serious Drug Addicts and Alcoholics can’t afford wait times. The only alternative is going Cold Turkey.

 

[Bluegoat]

The way the site in Vancouver works is that there is a site downstairs where people can use the drugs they bring. The site is monitored and if someone ODs, they can get immediate aid and an ambulance. There is also a needle exchange I believe, and upstairs are drug rehabilitation services.

At the social level, harm reduction sites are partly about mitigating harm to the larger community, so for example making sure needles are disposed of safely instead of dropped all over the place.

I think at a spiritual level the point is that sin is heavily mitigated, always, by circumstances. And how we approach helping an addict recover, at a spiritual level, does not always mean approaching what objectively is the worst sin first. Healing, spiritually and physically, is a process. Addiction to the degree the people who use these places experience is, I think, no longer at the level where it is a sin. It’s something they need to be delivered from.

So for an addict who is using serious drugs, getting even to the point of being able to make a decision to stop can be a difficult process. Staying alive to make the decision at all is one issue. Easy access to services is another. And caring enough about themselves to actually do it is another. These things can be helped by harm reduction programs of various kinds; by keeping them alive by bringing people into contact with services, by making sure they know someone is looking out for them, even just by giving them a place to take a shower.

In some places there has even been good success with providing measured doses of drugs in a medical setting. The patients are then in a position to get themselves together, maybe get a job, look after their health, and have normal relationships with friends and family. It takes them out of a position of hiding from the law, spending all their money on drugs and being homeless, and being in and out of medical crises. Under what conditions is it more likely that someone can have the resources to attempt giving up drugs? Under which are they more of a danger to society, and under which can they contribute?

It isn’t like non-addicts look at these people using the safe injection sites and say “oh wow, society clearly approves and that looks like fun, I’ll be an addict.” And it isn’t like the American approach to the drug problem is showing any signs of success.

A lot of the objections to this stuff seem to me to come from people who think addiction is primarily about moral weakness. And as far as the court ruling, I think it makes sense to most medical professionals who have ever had to deal with the kind of addict who is likely to use those kinds of services. It makes it a lot easier to deliver the kinds of health services that increase their chances of beating addiction.

 

[Bluegoat]

This is a great post and I agree with the theory but from what I have read in practice it usually doesn’t work. This is much the same arguement used to promote the legalization of prostitution…it will “keep it all in one place and off the streets” but it doesn’t work that way. Prostitution is legal in many places in Nevada and not only do they have legal brothels but illegal street prostitution is everywhere.

Places with safe drug places to use needles (from what I have read) also suffer from an increase in needles being dropped all over the place! Why? I think because it promotes tolerance for social use and attracts those that use drugs. If a drug addict is high on drugs he is going to drop his needle wherever…at that moment in time he isn’t going to be concerned about public health.

Compassionate care, rehab, spiritual care, love, showers, food, employment, education…I am in favor of all this and more. I am confused why you made the connection that if a person is not in favor of needle-give-aways that they somehow beleive drug users are morally weak and don’t want to help them. We are all morally weak! I am no better then a drug user! I just am not in favor of safe drug sites.

As far as I know, how effective these programs are at containing problems like needles etc varies, but it isn’t ever a total fix. I think though that harm reduction also includes ideas that go beyond that sort of problem, into making it more possible for the addicts and community to interact in a potentially positive way.

The connection to seeing addiction as a moral issue is in the arguments that I see people make. THe implication is that if they want help, they need to give up drugs right away. An inability to do this means they have to suffer for it, often a position put forward with a very self-righteous tone “I will not help a person sin!” That is making it moral - they are sinning by being a drug addict. But is it a sin for an addict to use drugs? That is the assumption, but any priest or religious working in addictions will tell you that at the point a person is shooting up in a safe injection site, it’s a real question. And if it is no longer a sin in the normal sense of the word, the argument breaks down. It is not helping people sin.

Without something like a safe injection site (and I don’t imagine that is the only way to accomplish the same thing, but it is one way,) maybe they get a shower and a pamphlet and some kind words but then you send them back into the street to shoot up in an alley and die alone if they OD. If you know a person is unable to overcome the physical issue, what does it mean that you are sending them away? I think this is what the issue is with the court ruling. If a doctor has a patient who is a serious addict with a difficult road to recovery, how is it providing medical care to send him out on the street?

For sure not all harm reduction strategies work, as you point out. In the case of safe injection sites, I’ve rarely heard addicts or those who actually work with them say they are a negative thing. I believe I have heard one with reservations, but even he thought they were responsible for helping people who needed it. In general though it is a sensible idea to really investigate whether any initiatives are actually working to good effect.

 

[Rascalking]

Enabling self destructive behaviors isn’t compassion. It’s false compassion at best.

It’s just another example of the trend in our culture towards stating that people should have the right to absolute license in their behavior without any responsibility for the consequences.

Anything that makes it easier to use/abuse drugs should be outlawed. Period. People don’t seem to know-or worse, don’t seem to care-about the damage drugs do to you.

 

[centurionguard]

Enabling self destructive behaviors isn’t compassion. It’s false compassion at best.

It’s just another example of the trend in our culture towards stating that people should have the right to absolute license in their behavior without any responsibility for the consequences.

I’m not ignoring the validity of the point your making. On the surface Safe Drug Injection Sites look like a bad idea. But just suppose these Safe Injection Sites do offer good alternative advice and help that will lead Drug Users to better health care that will enable them to kick their bad habit.

Life is all about making Good and Bad Choices. Some people (Drug Users) need help to make the better choice. Granted government supported establishments like these aren’t going to solve every drug user case, but they do offer alternatives.

The question remains is the ventured risk of saving the life of some Drug Users worth the trouble? That’s the real question.

 

[Bluegoat]

I see what you are saying here, maybe you are right in that a person who is a slave to addiction may not necessarily have the full capacity to commit a sin, therefore it may not be sinful for them. So you make the arguement that giving out needles is not supporting sin, still this does not make the action desirable.

Okay masturbation is sinful, however the Catechism clearly states that youth or habit may be mitigating circumstances. So a young person person committing this act may not in fact be sinning…however it is still not right for a responsible individual to encourage this behavior. Is a young child having a tantrum committing a sin? No, but a parent knowing that this behavior is not good for the child is responsible for directing their behaviors in the right direction. Is prostitution a sin? Yes but women who have been abused and living on the streets may not be 100% responsibile for their decisions. That being said I still would not provide them with condoms.

I can see circumstances where a drug addict might not be completely responsible for their actions, however I, as a sober and responsible person would never consider providing them with needles. Clean beds, treatment, food, love, clothes, compainionship, encouragement, medical care YES but needles no. Drug addiction is slavery and I cannot contribute to keeping someone in slavery. I don’t beleive it is Christian behavior to support someone’s behavior that is bad for their body, mind or soul.

As a side note you also mentioned condescending behavior towards drug addicts. Dear Bluegoat I offer you that condescending behavior among Christians is everywhere and do your best to ignore it. People are condescending to large families and small families, Latin Mass goers and guitar-Mass-goers…you see there is no end to the ways we can look down on one another because we are all sinners!

In fact I have heard of people advised by their priest (Orthodox, not Catholic) to worry less about a bad masturbation habit, and instead concentrate on changing a behavior that was also evil and more directly affecting the person’s will. Not with the idea that masturbation was a good thing, or even recommending it, but simply saying that a better form of attack in that case might be indirect.

It is very similar to the idea of a doctor helping a cancer patient overcome less serious problems so that he will be strong enough to have surgery later. Or even, if the surgery may be impossible to do, in order to improve the patients health and comfort for its own sake. An addict is a whole person, not just his addiction.

This is no different than something like NFP, which is not an ideal from a Catholic POV by any means. Rather, it is a concession to human weakness, one which the Church allows for and even provides information on.

 

[jilly4ski]

This is no different than something like NFP, which is not an ideal from a Catholic POV by any means. Rather, it is a concession to human weakness, one which the Church allows for and even provides information on.

Actually this is not like NFP. NFP, which is mutually agreed upon abstinence is a morally neutral act. But using dangerous drugs for recreation is a morally bad act (sin), regardless of the addict’s culpability.

It is more like providing those who insist on having sex outside of marriage with condoms, and a safe place to have sex. Sex outside of marriage=morally bad act.
Of course it is not exactly like, (unless they have a sex addiction I suppose.

 

[Bearontherun]

I think that NFP is a good comparison. Using NFP for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is only considered morally acceptable when there is a grave reason for avoiding conception.

Likewise, a safe injection site might be considered morally fine in the particular circumstance that we are dealing with if we are focusing on treating and helping severely addicted users for instance.

 

[jilly4ski]

I think that NFP is a good comparison. Using NFP for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is only considered morally acceptable when there is a grave reason for avoiding conception.

Likewise, a safe injection site might be considered morally fine in the particular circumstance that we are dealing with if we are focusing on treating and helping severely addicted users for instance.

I think you are mixing up intentions and acts. The act of abstaining is morally neutral, but ones intentions behind abstaining can be sinful. On the other side, shooting drugs is always sinful, (though culpability might be lessened). Can their be good intentions for shooting drugs? Now providing a safe injection site might have a good intention behind it, but shooting drugs will never be morally good or morally neutral, thus it is not a good comparison. Like I said before, it is closer to providing condoms to those who insist on having sex to keep them safe from pregnancies and diseases.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the issue is that I don’t see shooting drugs, in a broad sense, as sinful. It may be sinful - It is a context based thing. Saying drugs are always sinful is a bit like saying taking a drink is always sinful.

I think we would all say that taking drugs prescribed by a doctor is ok, even when they affect our functioning. Neither the patient nor the doctor nor the pharmacist is sinning by aiding the patient.

Keep in mind that patients can often become addicted to these drugs and need to be weaned off one there is no necessity for them. This is not considered a moral issue.

Shooting drugs (or drinking or chocking oneself or whatever) with the intention to enter an altered state of consciousnesses with no health or other reason to require it is generally going to be sinful.

A serious addict isn’t so much like the latter, as the former. They will have, possibly appreciate, the altered state of consciousness. But they are now taking the drug primarily to prevent the very serious physical symptoms that will result if they do not. That is, they are taking it in very much the same way as medicine is taken. The goal should be to stop taking it if at all possible, but that takes time. But if it isn’t sinful for them to do it, how is it sinful to give them access? Would it be sinful to give the person a legal drug if they were not going to use it? Are you wishing the person harm?

The legal aspects are part of what contribute to the problem. The addict is forced to engage in illegal activity to avoid withdrawal, which isn’t good for anyone. But we shouldn’t let that make us assume that is necessarily objectively the case.

Even to use a more banal example, many might argue that smoking is “objectively sinful”. On the other hand, if a person was weaning themselves down to quit, I have never heard of any suggestion that giving them a light is a sin on the part of the guy with a match. I think a lot of the different perception of this is that smoking has been legal, and other drugs haven’t.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think you are mixing up intentions and acts. The act of abstaining is morally neutral, but ones intentions behind abstaining can be sinful. On the other side, shooting drugs is always sinful, (though culpability might be lessened). Can their be good intentions for shooting drugs? Now providing a safe injection site might have a good intention behind it, but shooting drugs will never be morally good or morally neutral, thus it is not a good comparison. Like I said before, it is closer to providing condoms to those who insist on having sex to keep them safe from pregnancies and diseases.

I think that this is less clear than it might seem. Did you know that Augustine severely criticized heretics who tried to have sex while avoiding pregnancy through intermittent abstinence. As far as he was concerned, they were looking to separate the act from it’s purpose.

The idea is that every time we have sex, we are willing to concieve a child, in a positive sense. Willing in a neutral sense is acceptable, but less good.

This state is not really possible to one who is using NFP to avoid pregnancy. They are, if using it according to the way they should, willing to accept a pregnancy if it comes, but they are nonetheless actively acting toward avoiding pregnancy simply by keeping track of cycles and choosing to abstain when they are fertile.

The CC allowing NFP is a concession to a less than perfect world. Because abstinence itself is not out and out objectively wrong, it is allowed, but it is not the ideal. The ideal would be sex with no strings (that is, with no precautions of any kind against pregnancy) or no sex at all if pregnancy - its natural result - was not willed or at least neutral.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Concerning the OP, I honestly don’t know. You really need to be a professional within the field to know for sure. It’s really hell out there, and many of the intravenous drug users are frustrated and depressed towards life; they probably do need a safe place to shoot-up. We got to pray for such people! They need a good dose of religion, something that I believe is offered to them by the religious within the facility!

 

[centurionguard]

Concerning the OP, I honestly don’t know. You really need to be a professional within the field to know for sure. It’s really hell out there, and many of the intravenous drug users are frustrated and depressed towards life; they probably do need a safe place to shoot-up. We got to pray for such people! They need a good dose of religion, something that I believe is offered to them by the religious within the facility!

Totally Agree.

I certainly don’t see how Safe Drug Injection Sites got thought of over night by some over zealous goodie two shoes good deed lobbyist’s.
What I find most curiously strange is that the Supreme Court of Canada OK ed this ruling over the heads of the Federal Government. Many federal political constituents were against the idea. After the official finalized Supreme Court Ruling, Prime Minister Harper was questioned about it. His reply; we will have to study and deliberate this further.

 

[Bluegoat]

They were hardly thought of overnight. The Vancouver site is not new, and they’ve been used in other countries for quite some time. There is even a fair bit of data that’s been collected about them.