Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DiabetesDancer on October 1, 2011 at 9:16am

Insite provides a safe place for addicts, esp the homeless of the Downtown East Side of Vancouver, to inject their drugs. They bring their own drugs and are given a clean corner, pure water, fresh syringes and healthcare monitoring in case there is an overdose or similar problem. Their alternative is an alley with no clean water or surfaces, and no one to care if they live or die.

I'm really not interested in going to a clean safe place to take my insulin shots; my home is fine and I can afford syringes, esp if I reuse them a few times. I would expect that a diabetic homeless person would be welcome to use the Insite facility and get a syringe to take their insulin shots, assuming they have a source for getting and managing their insulin in the first place.

I don't think that the issues are parallel. It is the provincial health plans that decide what is and isn't covered: a special committee meets regularly to go over the lists. Membership in the committees varies by province, but they would be the place to apply pressure, either to include more supplies or to create a special category (like that for mental health) that ensures free pharmaceuticals for those with limited incomes.

Permalink Reply by Tracy on October 1, 2011 at 9:57am

I support the decision, don't misunderstand me. I just think that this decision opens some doors for treatment for those with other diseases. If you look at the decision (available online), you will see that Justice McLachlin stated that the right to life and security of drug addicts was engaged by Canada and the Minister of Health if their access to Insite were to be impeded. My argument is that a diabetic's right to life is impeded if they do not have the adequate funds to pay for their supplies since life-sustaining diabetes supplies are not 100% covered in BC (I'm not sure about other provinces, but I know for certain about here). I think the issues are parallel. I'm just saying that there is more ammunition to get free access to medical care and supplies for people with diabetes and others that suffer from chronic disease with this decision. I want to pursue it.

Permalink Reply by DiabetesDancer on October 1, 2011 at 11:21am

Reading about the decision, my impression is that it relates to the legality of having such a site, given our country's drug laws. In effect, the police now cannot raid the place and shut it down just because people in there have illegal drugs on the premises. The right to access healthcare over-rules the drug laws. Fortunately we don't have that problem with insulin.

In any event, agreed that it would be a very good thing if there were more financial support for diabetes care.

Permalink Reply by nel on October 1, 2011 at 2:10pm

Thanks for posting Tracy and I hope it does not stop here !!...
What this proves to me : Advocacy does pay off as it did on September 30 ...a start : for us PWD to ban together with organizations like the CDA, JDRF( become a member ) ...have your voice heard at election times and write.letters to those, who make the decisions even when it is not election time ( for instance if your insulin needles should be for free or not ) ..speak to your Medical Team and ask them to become involved ...write the editors of your local papers ....tell your neighbour how much an insulin pump cost ....tell them too, that you have to pay for your insulin to sustain life ...this disease if NOT managed 24/7 is a killer.

Permalink Reply by Tracy on October 1, 2011 at 3:04pm

Don't worry nel... I do. I tell people about the costs of diabetes often. Currently writing a letter to the editor for the Globe and Mail regarding this Supreme Court decision and I'm hoping to see if there can be a case made for improved diabetes care regarding the precedent set by their decision.