Pierre Poilievre’s attack on me is a symptom of a larger problem

Posted on September 4, 2024 in Health Debates

Source: — Authors:

TheStar.com – Opinion/ Contributors
Aug. 31, 2024.   By Doris Grinspun, Contributor

After Doris Grinspun, CEO of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO), appeared on CBC News to make the case for keeping safe injection sites open, a spokesperson from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s office mocked her professional designations and called her a “WACKO expert.” 

Instead of mocking, Conservative Leader Pierre “Poilievre and his team could benefit from experts to understand the evidence on the importance of supervised consumption sites as an essential pillar of a multi-pronged approach to address this public health crisis,” Doris Grinspun of the RNAO writes.

When nurses speak out, we do so based on evidence and on health and clinical knowledge. Our advocacy for healthy public policy is grounded on the lived experiences of those we care for and by our in-depth expertise on social determinants of health.

This is one element that makes nursing the most trusted profession, except apparently for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, a man who aspires to become prime minister. His office recently mocked the expertise of myself and others with “too many letters after their names.” This strange behaviour reveals the divisive and belittling leadership we can expect from Poilievre and his team if given the opportunity.

There is a history to his lack of empathy and consistent undermining of scientific evidence and expertise. We are still reeling from extremist politicians who openly sabotaged vaccination efforts during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. As recently as October 2023, Poilievre and at least one of his colleagues pushed a private member’s anti-vaccine mandate bill in Parliament to tie the hands of public health officers — a bill the majority of MPs wisely agreed to drop.

From a healthy public policy perspective, the callous message coming from Poilievre’s office after I voiced support for supervised consumption site (SCS) is dangerous on many fronts. He is shutting down dialogue on an escalating and preventable human tragedy that needs immediate attention.

And unfortunately, Poilievre and team are not alone in this rhetoric. For example, the Ford government announced on Aug. 20 a misguided decision to gut consumption site services in the province. The next day, Premier Doug Ford slammed the federal government’s prior approval of 16 safer supply projects in Ontario, stating, “As far as I’m concerned the federal government is the biggest drug dealer in the entire country.”

Ford’s overall message is deceptive. His claim that we need to get rid of safe supply begs a serious question: what will happen when there are no guardrails against unsafe supply? The answer? Ontario’s communities will look like some of the big cities in the U.S., with people convulsing and dying in the streets.

While nurses do welcome the Ontario government’s investment in a set of Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) hubs, these alone will do little to confront the public health emergency that will arise if life-saving consumption sites and needle exchange programs are withdrawn.

Here’s what we know. An average of 10 people per day are dying due to an unregulated drug supply in Ontario. In 2023 alone, almost 4,000 lives were lost to the toxic drug crisis.

In a reckless move that amounts to a death sentence for even more vulnerable people, the Ford government has given notice that it is withdrawing life-saving health-care services offered at supervised consumption sites under the pretence of safety and security. Yet the facts show that crime has decreased in communities that have consumption sites.

Poilievre’s referring to these sites as “drug dens” is callous and deceptive. These sites offer a lifeline to those struggling with substance use. The very same harm reduction programs that some leaders are targeting don’t only save lives; they also open the door to treatment and recovery.

Whether it’s overdose prevention, primary care or mental health support, these services help keep people alive. For many struggling with substance use, these sites are their only hope when they are ready for treatment and recovery. Shutting sites down will lead to more preventable deaths, increased HIV and Hepatitis C infections and cost taxpayers more. And our communities will become less safe with more contaminated needles lying around.

Star readers likely know people who struggle with substance use. They are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, friends and neighbours. These people need our compassion and support, not stigma, sarcasm and withdrawal of life-saving solutions that can put them onto healthier paths.

For these reasons, Ford must reverse the thoughtless decision to gut supervised consumption site services in Ontario. It is imperative that we work on all fronts — genuinely, courageously and together — to save lives being lost to the toxic drug supply.

As for Poilievre’s office’s recent mocking of actual expertise, yes, we nurses — including me — have many letters after our names. We are proud of our education. It affords us the in-depth knowledge to care for people in health and illness.

Instead of mocking, Poilievre and his team could benefit from experts to understand the evidence on the importance of supervised consumption sites as an essential pillar of a multi-pronged approach to address this public health crisis and to make our communities safer for all.

Dr. Doris Grinspun, RN, O.ONT., is chief executive officer of Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO).

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/pierre-poilievres-attack-on-me-is-a-symptom-of-a-larger-problem/article_2b636c1a-662f-11ef-b372-e3618e23fb8f.html

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 4th, 2024 at 10:00 am and is filed under Health Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply