Fifteen-year-old Brandon Shaw was forcibly taken to a secure facility in Edmonton for detoxification from opioids, a move that inadvertently led to a prolonged struggle with drug addiction. The mandatory program appeared counterproductive, as Shaw reported being treated harshly and lacking essential support like counseling during his 10-day stay. Now 30, Shaw, who has been free from street drugs for two years, recalls the experience as one that made him a more adept drug user rather than helping him recover.
Shaw is a vocal opponent of Alberta’s proposed involuntary care act, introduced by the United Conservative Party as a legislative initiative. The act aims to widen the scope for mandatory treatment of individuals with severe drug addictions who pose harm to themselves or others. This proposed legislation, if enacted, would be pioneering in Canada, allowing for involuntary intervention in cases of severe addiction.
Currently, Alberta’s Mental Health Act permits involuntary detention and treatment in extreme scenarios, but individuals capable of understanding the risks can refuse drug-related treatment. Premier Danielle Smith, during a press briefing, emphasized that individuals severely addicted are often not in a position to make sound medical decisions for themselves. She highlighted a case where a person overdosed nearly 200 times in a year to illustrate the need for such legislation.
Since 2006, a legal mechanism has allowed parents or guardians to seek court orders for the involuntary treatment of minors. Shaw’s mother, Angie Staines, followed this route in 2010 but later expressed regret, describing the experience as traumatizing for both her and her son.
The current youth program, governed by the Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act, allows confinement for up to 15 days. The proposed Compassionate Intervention Act would repeal this act, potentially extending youth confinement periods. It would empower parents, police, and healthcare workers to recommend individuals for involuntary care, with applications assessed by a quasi-judicial body. Possible outcomes include up to three months in intensive facilities, up to six months in less intensive care, or discharge. Decisions could be contested in court.
The criteria for intervention revolve around potential harm to oneself, others, and community safety, as well as the likelihood of such harm occurring imminently. These considerations are particularly pertinent as they could impact the broader community’s well-being.
Critics, including Shaw, argue that the program erodes trust in law enforcement and healthcare, also straining familial relationships. Many suggest improvements to the voluntary system, plagued by long wait times, instead of introducing potentially rights-infringing legislation. Conversely, supporters view the act as a vital tool for potentially saving lives, underscoring personal stories like that of Susan Boone, whose daughter Ashley died from an overdose in 2021. Boone believes that had such an intervention existed, her daughter might have survived. This sentiment fuels hope for other families grappling with similar challenges.
Understanding the Impact
The introduction of Alberta’s proposed involuntary care act could have significant implications for families, communities, and the healthcare system. For families with loved ones suffering from severe addiction, the legislation promises a new, albeit controversial, avenue for intervention. This could potentially reduce the number of drug-related fatalities, offering families a sense of hope and control in dire situations.
However, the legislation also raises concerns about personal rights and the potential for misuse. Critics fear that the act could lead to unnecessary confinement and further distrust in the healthcare and legal systems. This distrust could ultimately deter individuals from seeking voluntary help, exacerbating the very issues the legislation aims to address.
Moreover, the focus on involuntary intervention could overshadow the need for enhanced voluntary services. Improving access to voluntary treatment options, reducing wait times, and providing comprehensive support could foster a more balanced approach, addressing addiction’s complexities without compromising individual rights.
