SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[guyser]

The mentioning of the hip replacement is entirely relevant, as public money is public money. If the two million dollars that went into operating Insite instead went towards hip replacements, grandpa and grandma perhaps wouldn't have to wait three years for their surgeries.

Wonderful, except the fact is they aren't.

But put an emotional strawman, in an attempt to emotionalize your point.

Silly.

And perhaps they wouldn't have to sit on disability while they waited.

They're retired, no disability.

Next?

Edited October 6, 2011 by guyser

[ToadBrother]

Come on folks, don't you all know how the most successful rehabilitation centers for drug addicts provide free drugs and clean needles? Oh wait...

Well, we all know tossing them in jail or kicking them out on the streets where dirty needles oozing with hepatitis and HIV is just such a bonus way to treat them.

[Bob]

Wonderful, except the fact is they aren't.

But put an emotional strawman, in an attempt to emotionalize your point.

Silly.

They're retired, no disability.

Next?

It's sad how you can't grasp a simple truth about the singular nature of public funds. Spending public money is about choices, if you spend in one place, you can't spend it in another, don't you get that? The two million dollars the province of BC spends on Insite is a choice, and I know many people out there agree with me that there are more worthwhile expenditures within the realm of healthcare, notably the wait times for many medical procedures for people of all ages.

Are you that dense to not realize that people who need surgeries aren't all retired seniors? You think joint repair/replacement surgeries are only for old fogies in the nursing home? Do you live in such a small bubble that you don't know people who've had to wait two or three years to get such a procedure done? When I see such dumbfounded responses from people like yourself I wonder if the majority of MLW members on the left have a circle of friends of two people. Go out there, talk to people, see what's going on. You live in a world of assumptions, until the day comes that you need a serious medical procedure and need to wait months or years.

[TimG]

The scientific validity doesn't matter.

I agree 100%. The scientific validity was not a real factor in the SCC decision. My hypothetical about proving there is no legimate health reason was just that: a hypothetical that would be extremely tough to do. The only argument I was making is the SCC is NOT a measure of the validity of the science. They did not really look at it because as your said "the scientific validity doesn't matter".

[cybercoma]

It's explained very clearly in their ruling. Feel free to go through it, point out the parts you think are wrong and provide evidence to support your claims: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html

You keep saying there is no evidence. However, just this past April The Lancet (read how they handle submissions here) published an article detailing a reduction in overdose deaths. Insite's summary can be found here. In short, Insite is saving lives. The Minister of Health violates s. 7 of the Charter by not providing Insite an exemption from the CDSA because it endangers lives.

[Bob]

Well, we all know tossing them in jail or kicking them out on the streets where dirty needles oozing with hepatitis and HIV is just such a bonus way to treat them.

So you think Insite has reduced the amount of addicts in any meaningful way? And if so, was it efficient? If you're going to spend money on drug rehabilitation, which many folks wouldn't even accept as a worthwhile expenditure of public money, put into drug rehabilitation centres, not drug use centres.

Basically, you're implying that giving them a place to get high is a "bonus way to treat them".

Edited October 6, 2011 by Bob

[cybercoma]

I agree 100%. The scientific validity was not a real factor in the SCC decision. My hypothetical about proving there is no legimate health reason was just that: a hypothetical that would be extremely tough to do. The only argument I was making is the SCC is NOT a measure of the validity of the science. They did not really look at it because as your said "the scientific validity doesn't matter".

They and both parties to the court case accepted the science as valid. That's the only reason they didn't look into it. If you have any evidence that it's not valid, then pony up.

[cybercoma]

Come on folks, don't you all know how the most successful rehabilitation centers for drug addicts provide free drugs and clean needles? Oh wait...

I don't mind arguing with someone that's informed on the issue, but if you have absolutely no idea what Insite does, I suggest you educate yourself before giving an opinion.

[TimG]

They and both parties to the court case accepted the science as valid. That's the only reason they didn't look into it. If you have any evidence that it's not valid, then pony up.

You seem to think this is a binary question. Either someone shows it is not valid or it must be accepted as valid. It is nonsense. I cannot know how much I trust this particular science unless I see some analysis of the players, the reviewers and an assessment of the conflicts of interest by a party that has no vested interest in the program (for or against). Until I see that I say it might be true. Might not. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[Bob]

It's explained very clearly in their ruling. Feel free to go through it, point out the parts you think are wrong and provide evidence to support your claims: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html

You keep saying there is no evidence. However, just this past April The Lancet (read how they handle submissions here) published an article detailing a reduction in overdose deaths. Insite's summary can be found here. In short, Insite is saving lives. The Minister of Health violates s. 7 of the Charter by not providing Insite an exemption from the CDSA because it endangers lives.

I've already acknowledged that, and you don't need a study to ascertain that having a dedicated emergency response team for drug users in a drug use site will save people from killing themselves via overdose. I love how robots like you who can't think for yourselves need a "study" to tell you something so obvious. Of course less drug users will die from overdose if they use drugs in the presence of a dedicated medical intervention team! The question is whether or not the money spent towards saving these people is worth it. Should we have a dedicated emergency response team for all people with serious heart problems? How about in any apartments building that has a certain proportion of residents over the age of 65? Leftists like you don't grasp that public money is a limited resource, and it needs to be allocated efficiently, not emotionally or ideologically. We have Canadian suffering and dying today because of healthcare shortages yet somehow money spent towards giving drug users a "safe" place to get high is justifiable.

[Bob]

I don't mind arguing with someone that's informed on the issue, but if you have absolutely no idea what Insite does, I suggest you educate yourself before giving an opinion.

I know Insite doesn't provide drugs. You completely missed the point of what I was saying. Your problem, not mine.

[guyser]

It's sad how you can't grasp a simple truth about the singular nature of public funds.

Not only do I grasp it , I understand it far better than you will

Hey bob, dont worry about it, you live in Israel MYOFB ...k?

Spending public money is about choices, if you spend in one place, you can't spend it in another, don't you get that?

Oh my goawd...really bob? Gosh thanks for that !

The two million dollars the province of BC spends on Insite is a choice, and I know many people out there agree with me that there are more worthwhile expenditures within the realm of healthcare, notably the wait times for many medical procedures for people of all ages.

Not to worry, stupid people will always agree with stupid thoughts . Congrats.

Perhaps 2M spent at insite saves two or three times that amount in lessened hosptial stays, police actions and so on.

Economics, you dont get it. We understand.

Are you that dense to not realize that people who need surgeries aren't all retired seniors?

Who said grandma and grandpa? You did .

And Im thick?

Do you live in such a small bubble that you don't know people who've had to wait two or three years to get such a procedure done?

And neither do you bob, you are full of lies and bullshit since you started posting here. Lies and bullshit are your stock in trade.

When I see such dumbfounded responses from people like yourself I wonder if the majority of MLW members on the left have a circle of friends of two people. Go out there, talk to people, see what's going on. You live in a world of assumptions, until the day comes that you need a serious medical procedure and need to wait months or years.

Go f yourself bob.

I spent 3.5 years in a hospital everyday. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stay in Israel bob. It works for you there.

I never waited more than 4 days for any procedure. Cancer? Yup, 3 dys.

A triple bypass for my dad, 1.5 days, the Surgeon was on holiday.

Bullshit and lies.

[cybercoma]

You seem to think this is a binary question. Either someone shows it is not valid or it must be accepted as valid. It is nonsense. I cannot know how much I trust this particular science unless I see some analysis of the players, the reviewers and an assessment of the conflicts of interest by a party that has no vested interest in the program (for or against). Until I see that I say it might be true. Might not.

In other words, you can't believe any scientific research.

[guyser]

We have Canadian suffering and dying today because of healthcare shortages

Bullshit bob at it again

Edited October 6, 2011 by guyser

[Bob]

In other words, you can't believe any scientific research.

Scientific research to tell you that having a dedicated medical intervention team at a drug use centre saves the lives of drug users who are present when overdosing. Gotcha. We sure needed a study for that.

[TimG]

In other words, you can't believe any scientific research.

If it is based on solid mathmatical theory, repeatable experimental evidence or double blind studies then that mitigates many of the conflict of interest problems. But as a general rule, I suspect any study based on data mining - even if I like the conclusions. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[Bob]

Bullshit bob at it again

So Canadians aren't dying from healthcare shortages? Canadians aren't waiting years for "non-emergency" surgeries? Canadians aren't waiting months to get essential diagnostics? I'm imagining family friends who elected to go the USA instead of wait two years for a shoulder surgery, while an ex-friend of mine waited over a year for a knee surgery? The mother of my closest friend didn't go through years of waiting for several surgeries on her hips and knees? My friend isn't waiting right now for nine months in order to have a certain laser procedure done to remove plantar warts?

[cybercoma]

I've already acknowledged that, and you don't need a study to ascertain that having a dedicated emergency response team for drug users in a drug use site will save people from killing themselves via overdose. I love how robots like you who can't think for yourselves need a "study" to tell you something so obvious. Of course less drug users will die from overdose if they use drugs in the presence of a dedicated medical intervention team! The question is whether or not the money spent towards saving these people is worth it. Should we have a dedicated emergency response team for all people with serious heart problems? How about in any apartments building that has a certain proportion of residents over the age of 65? Leftists like you don't grasp that public money is a limited resource, and it needs to be allocated efficiently, not emotionally or ideologically. We have Canadian suffering and dying today because of healthcare shortages yet somehow money spent towards giving drug users a "safe" place to get high is justifiable.

I don't need your absurd rhetoric about "Leftists like [me]" and your insulting remarks about how I can't think for myself. This has nothing to do with political dichotomies and your wish-list for public funds. It has to do with one very simple matter. The Minister of Health has an obligation to grant Insite exemption from the CDSA due to s. 7 of the Charter because as you recognize yourself, "less drug users will die from overdose if they use drugs in the presence of a dedicated medical intervention team." This case never once had anything to do with funding. It has to do with Insite's exemption from the CDSA. I'm not going to sit here and get into a pissing match with you about the value of different people's lives. Everyone is protected under section 7, not one group of people more than another.

[Bob]

I love this, the barely literate leftist tells me to "mind my own business" as if somehow he's more Canadian than I am, and tells me that everything is just fine and dandy with the Canadian healthcare system. Yeah, it's sure easy to get a family doctor in Ontario right now. It only takes a few days to see most specialists. When going to the emergency room there's no need to bring a book and a pillow. MRIs and CAT scans are available within days. Yeah, everything is peachy and only getting better. Remember, McGuinty told us that medical wait times are going down, so it must be true! Apparently Ontario also has the shortest wait times in Canada, because McGuinty said so!

[Bob]

I don't need your absurd rhetoric about "Leftists like [me]" and your insulting remarks about how I can't think for myself. This has nothing to do with political dichotomies and your wish-list for public funds. It has to do with one very simple matter. The Minister of Health has an obligation to grant Insite exemption from the CDSA due to s. 7 of the Charter because as you recognize yourself, "less drug users will die from overdose if they use drugs in the presence of a dedicated medical intervention team." This case never once had anything to do with funding. It has to do with Insite's exemption from the CDSA. I'm not going to sit here and get into a pissing match with you about the value of different people's lives. Everyone is protected under section 7, not one group of people more than another.

What about people who suffer from heart disease? Are we now going to guarantee that they have quick access to a medical emergency team in the event of them having a heart attack? Let's make sure there's a dedicated team of paramedics in every building where at least 10% of the residents have heart disease and/or are over the age of 65. Don't you see how ridiculous this expansion of Section 7 "rights" is? Of course I'm going to ridicule you when you perpetuate these lies that are destroying this country. And now the SCoC is in on it, with the full support of dedicated leftists like yourself who feel that drug addicts are now entitled to services that other Canadians don't receive.

[cybercoma]

I don't need your absurd rhetoric about "Leftists like [me]" and your insulting remarks about how I can't think for myself. This has nothing to do with political dichotomies and your wish-list for public funds. It has to do with one very simple matter. The Minister of Health has an obligation to grant Insite exemption from the CDSA due to s. 7 of the Charter because as you recognize yourself, "less drug users will die from overdose if they use drugs in the presence of a dedicated medical intervention team." This case never once had anything to do with funding. It has to do with Insite's exemption from the CDSA. I'm not going to sit here and get into a pissing match with you about the value of different people's lives. Everyone is protected under section 7, not one group of people more than another.

Actually, pardon me. It was already accepted by the federal government that Insite provided an economic benefit:

the Expert Advisory Committee concluded, inter alia, that:

• the cost/benefit analysis was favourable.

source: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html paragraph 28

I stand corrected. Not only were the economics considered, but they also found that you're full of crap.

[cybercoma]

What about people who suffer from heart disease? Are we now going to guarantee that they have quick access to a medical emergency team in the event of them having a heart attack? Let's make sure there's a dedicated team of paramedics in every building where at least 10% of the residents have heart disease and/or are over the age of 65.

They're called nursing homes. We did that a long time ago.

[Bob]

Yes of course, feel free to take a broad and unsubstantiated statements as indicating an "economic benefit".

[Bob]

They're called nursing homes. We did that a long time ago.

Yeah, since every person living with heart disease lives in a retirement home. I cannot continue this conversation with you. You've gone above my threshold of tolerance for stupidity. I mean that.

[ToadBrother]

So you think Insite has reduced the amount of addicts in any meaningful way? And if so, was it efficient? If you're going to spend money on drug rehabilitation, which many folks wouldn't even accept as a worthwhile expenditure of public money, put into drug rehabilitation centres, not drug use centres.

Basically, you're implying that giving them a place to get high is a "bonus way to treat them".

I don't think the point is to reduce the addicts at all. This is a public health issue. We should be extending this to crack and crystal meth as well to reduce the incidents of TB.

At any rate, everyone but the Federal Government is on side. It's not like there's this wide scale *local* rejection of what's going on. So I don't which "many folks" you refer to, beyond Tories and their supporters.