Are ‘Safe Supply’ Opioids Based More on Ideology Than Evidence?

People march in protest of the significant increase in opioid-related overdose deaths across British Columbia, in Victoria on April 14, 2022. (The Canadian Press/Chad Hipolito)

Commentary

Almost three years into the experimental opiate “safer supply” program in British Columbia and no one, including those handing out the pills, seems to know if it is working or making the problem worse. There’s no shortage of opinions arguing on either side of the debate, but recent reports suggest that the facts remain in short supply.

Safe supply initiatives fall under the broad category of harm reduction programs. For opiate addiction, the program typically involves the prescription and distribution of pills like hydromorphone, a medical-grade opioid that is as potent as heroin, to addicts. The underlying hope is that addicts will then forgo possibly tainted illicit street drugs in favour of the “safer” government-provided pills.

More than 40,000 Canadians have lost their lives to opioid overdoses since 2016, and B.C. is one of the world’s first jurisdictions to take the “safer supply” route in an effort to quell opioid overdoses.

But B.C.’s auditor general just released a report on the trial program and, so far, it remains unclear as to whether the program has made any progress. Opioid deaths are still increasing and, while the report doesn’t criticize the underlying philosophy of “safer supply,” it does note “deficiencies in key areas.”

According to the report, the government is conducting the program in a rather haphazard way. B.C. health authorities failed to maintain basic standards for administering an experimental trial and neglected their obligation to publish data on how the program is doing. The data was supposed to be publicly available by September 2022, more than 18 months ago.

Related Stories

Pharmacare Deal: What Happens When Health Care Is Reduced to Politics

2/29/2024

Hard to Find the Moral High Ground in BC’s Lawsuit Against Opioid Makers

12/9/2023

Instead, the report found that health authorities are overly reliant on incomplete and out-of-date fact sheets about the program’s performance. It also cited authorities for major failings in the management and delivery of the program.

The bureaucrats in charge say they have the data to support their claims about the success of the program, yet one has to wonder why—three years in—no data is available to support those claims.

A similar dearth of data has been noted in Ottawa where the House of Commons Health Committee has been exploring the opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis. One doctor who leads a safer supply program in London, Ontario, appeared to be a strong advocate for safer supply programs, claiming that safe supply clinicians rely on solid research and published studies.

But Dr. Marcus Powlowski, a Liberal MP and medical doctor who also has a master’s degree in health law and policy from Harvard, had apparently looked at the papers that the doctor proclaimed as evidence, and soundly renounced the studies as “basically a bunch of anecdotes.”

So where is this rigorous scientific evidence for safer supply programs?

Those who advocate for them always claim the moral high ground because of “evidence-based studies.” But such studies appear to be in short supply.

That’s probably why 72 B.C. doctors recently signed a letter that argues against safer supply, saying the evidence underlying the philosophy is “weak or inadequate.” They called for all safer supply programs to be “tightly controlled, rigorously monitored, and meticulously documented.”

A lack of medical evidence is likely related to another major issue outlined in the auditor general’s report—“prescriber hesitancy.” That is, there are only a limited number of doctors who are willing to write prescriptions for the potent opioids used in safer supply.

However, there is plenty of evidence for one disturbing aspect of this program—diversion. This is a practice whereby safer supply pills (primarily hydromorphone) given to addicts are subsequently sold (or diverted) to drug traffickers and/or organized crime groups to obtain more potent and illicit drugs like fentanyl.

In early March, the RCMP in northern B.C. revealed that thousands of safe supply opiate pills had been seized as part of organized crime busts in Prince George and Campbell River. It was considered to be solid evidence that diversion of safer supply drugs was occurring. According to the RCMP spokesperson, “Organized crime groups are actively involved in the redistribution of safe supply and prescription drugs,” and “what has been deemed safe is not being kept safe.”

It is simply not realistic to expect that such practices are not occurring in our major cities. The National Post, the CBC, and an independent filmmaker have all previously published evidence of diversion occurring in London, Ottawa, and Vancouver, respectively.

Drug policies such as safe supply have long bypassed appropriate scientific scrutiny because they supposedly save lives.  But the question still remains: Do they? And at what cost to addicts and the rest of society?

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.