Reducing Harms to Increase Health - Should the Canada Health Act Fund Harm Reduction Programs?

It is surprisingly difficult to find any information that does not support the efficacy and benefits of harm reduction. I am a supporter of harm reduction (in the sense that I tend to let scientific evidence inform my nursing practice). I am a Registered Nurse, meaning scientifically collected evidence guides my practice. My philosophical viewpoint is strong. And so, it seems odd that there is a reluctance to accept the evidence of harm reduction as something to guide policy change. Similarly, if harm reduction is not something to be embrace, it also seems odd that this is not so much based on research being conducted that shows that there may be problems with it and identifies better alternatives to current policy or how more of the same can somehow lead to improvement in the lives of people who use substances. 

So here we go, letting something that those in positions of power and privilege feel in their hearts determine public policy. Not surprisingly, most of the information that I have found opposing harm reduction is anecdotal and opinion papers which really does not mean much because really anyone that has an opinion about anything can bring it forth in a public forum. But, when you take a step back the question must be asked: if there is no evidence to support these stigmatizing, criminally justice-based, traditionally guided, then what are we doing? Are we doing harm? 

If I was creating an argument that the Canada Health Act should not fund harm reduction programs I would base it on four main points:

(1) The Canada Health Act is supposed to protect Canadians and this is not being done by promoting drug use, making it more visible and more easily accessible.
(2) Drug use can be viewed as an individual choice to engage in unhealthy and dangerous behaviour thus Canadian tax dollars should not have to pay for someone's poor choices.
(3) There is lack of consensus about a clear definition of harm reduction therefore money spent on these programs may be a waste of resources
(4) Harm reduction is not a medically necessary service.

Are these sound arguments with respect to all we know about evidence that supports Harm Reduction? 

What are the next steps to get the public (and government policy makers) to understanding the benefits of harm reduction so that they don't just accept it, but warmly embrace it as a compassion and human-centered approach? 

I will end with this point: if someone is dead as a result of not having adequate access to an evidence-informed, scientifically support public health strategy then how can we stand idly by and not accept the harm caused by a broken system? 

Peace,

Michelle D.