A commentary accuses opponents of "contempt for science"
I don't oppose harm reduction but, like this blogger, I see no reason why a recovery orientation could not be introduced in every harm reduction service.
The zeal for insite and contempt for critics make me wonder what their feeling would be about programs that distribute sleeping bags to homeless people to prevent frostbite and exposure deaths? These programs exist and there's one in my community.
Of course, there's one important difference. They engage in considerable advocacy, and not for more sleeping bags or tents, but for housing.
UPDATE: Peapod mentioned "evidence" below. Along the lines of his comment, we could produce studies and reams of evidence that sleeping bag distribution prevents frostbite and reduce exposure deaths, right? Does that make it the right thing to do? Maybe. Does that make it an adequate response? No. Does that mean that, in the establishment of priorities, it should trump other responses? No.
1 comment:
Jason, the analogy of harm reduction in homelessness is well made and I am very likely to steal it (with a source citation).
Again and again when speaking with harm reduction colleagues I come up against the same issues.
The first is an absolute conviction about the practices based on a robust faith in "the evidence".
The second is something akin to a blindness that there might be something more to offer.
A third issue is that their clients or patients are just "too bad" to achieve abstinent recovery.
Finally that abstinence is "dangerous" becaues of risk of loss of tolerance and the risk of relapse causing overdose.
Sometimes I get frustrated, then I spend some time with recovering people which always helps.
Post a Comment