Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Harm Reduct J. 2008 Oct 28;5:31. doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-5-31.
The art in law, like medicine, is in its humanity. Nowhere is the humanity in law more poignant than in BC Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield's recent judgment in the legal case aimed at protecting North America's only supervised injection facility (SIF) as a healthcare program: PHS Community Services Society versus the Attorney General of Canada. In order to protect the SIF from politicization, the PHS Community Services Society, the community organization that established and operates the program, along with two people living with addiction and three lawyers working for free, pro bono publico, took the federal government of Canada to court. The courtroom struggle that ensued was akin to a battle between David and Goliath. The judge in the case, Justice Pitfield, ruled in favour of the PHS and gave the Government of Canada one year to bring the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) into compliance with the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If parliament fails to do so, then the CDSA will evaporate from enforceability and law in June of 2009. Despite the fact that there are roughly twelve million intravenous drug addiction users in the world today, politics and prejudice oards harm reduction are still a barrier to the widespread application of the "best medicine" available for serious addicts. Nowhere is this clearer than in the opposition by conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his faithful servant, federal health minister Tony Clement, towards Vancouver's SIF ("Insite"). The continued angry politicization of addiction will only lead to the tragic loss of life, as addicts are condemned to death from infectious diseases (HIV & hepatitis) and preventable overdoses. In light of the established facts in science, medicine and now law, political opposition to life-saving population health programs (including SIFs) to address the effects of addiction is a kind of implicit capital punishment for the addicted. This commentary examines the socio-political context of the legal case and the major figures that contributed to it. It reviews Justice Pitfield's ruling, a judgment that has brought Canada one step closer to putting a stop to addiction's death row where intravenous drug users are needlessly, for political and ideological reasons alone, forced to face increased risks of death due to AIDS, hepatitis and overdose.
法律中的艺术就像医学一样，在于其人文关怀。在法律中，人文关怀体现得最为深刻的莫过于不列颠哥伦比亚省最高法院法官伊恩·皮特菲尔德（Ian Pitfield）最近在一个旨在保护北美的唯一一家监督注射设施（SIF）作为医疗保健计划的法律案件中的判决：PHS 社区服务协会诉加拿大总检察长。为了使 SIF 免受政治化的影响，成立并运营该计划的社区组织 PHS 社区服务协会、两名成瘾者以及三名免费为其提供公益法律服务的律师将加拿大联邦政府告上法庭。随之而来的法庭斗争就像是大卫与歌利亚之间的战斗。此案的法官皮特菲尔德法官（Justice Pitfield）做出了有利于 PHS 的裁决，并给加拿大政府一年的时间来使《控制药物和物质法》（CDSA）符合该国的《权利和自由宪章》。如果议会未能做到这一点，那么 CDSA 将在 2009 年 6 月失去可执行性和法律效力。尽管目前全球大约有两千万静脉注射吸毒者，但政治和对减少伤害的偏见仍然是广泛应用现有针对严重成瘾者的“最佳药物”的障碍。在保守派总理斯蒂芬·哈珀（Stephen Harper）及其忠实的联邦卫生部长托尼·克莱门特（Tony Clement）对温哥华 SIF（“Insite”）的反对中，这一点表现得尤为明显。对成瘾的持续愤怒的政治化只会导致生命的悲惨丧失，因为成瘾者将因传染病（HIV 和肝炎）和可预防的用药过量而被判处死刑。鉴于科学、医学和现在的法律中的既定事实，政治上反对挽救生命的人口健康计划（包括 SIF）来解决成瘾问题，无异于对成瘾者实施一种隐含的死刑。本评论探讨了法律案件的社会政治背景以及促成该案件的主要人物。它回顾了皮特菲尔德法官的裁决，这一裁决使加拿大在制止因政治和意识形态原因而使静脉吸毒者无端地被迫面临因艾滋病、肝炎和用药过量而增加死亡风险的“成瘾死囚区”方面又迈进了一步。
