In the midst of British Columbia’s provincial election, Premier David Eby has been accused of flip-flopping on involuntary care.
During a September press event, Eby announced that the province would expand involuntary care for people with concurrent mental illness, acquired brain injuries and addiction. The province stated that it will open more than 400 hospital based-mental health beds and two new secure care facilities: A correctional facility at Surrey Pretrial Services Centre and a secure housing and care facility at the Alouette Correctional Centre in Maple Ridge.
Eby also affirmed the province’s intention to open more regional facilities at prisons under provincial jurisdiction in the future. The province is currently taking steps to “clarify the authority of doctors under the existing Mental Health Act,” said Eby. He added that if the New Democratic Party (NDP) wins this election, it will introduce changes that will provide a clearer path to get patients, including youth, admitted when they “can’t ask for care themselves.”
Political pundits have speculated that the proposed expansion of involuntary care is an effort to appeal to more conservative voters. Conservative leader John Rustad has chided Eby’s inconsistency on involuntary care, writing “This kind of flopping only demonstrates a lack of leadership and vision.” For its part, the party has said its involuntary treatment program would support people who “pose a risk to themselves and others.”
Critics of the proposals have pointed to the limited evidence for the effectiveness of involuntary treatment for substance use. Green party leader Sonia Furstenau told Global News that she has concerns over “the over-reliance on involuntary care,” pointing to the limited evidence that it reduces re-hospitalization or repeat offences.
Though involuntary treatment for mental health disorders is allowed under B.C.’s existing Mental Health Act, it remains unclear exactly how that legislation might change if the NDP wins re-election. But what should we make of what little is known about the NDP’s involuntary care plan thus far?
Amazing to me that the so-called “experts” refer to the merits of Portugal’s approach of decriminalizing drug possession but we ignore Portugal’s rules about … drum roll … mandatory treatment! Their version of mandatory treatment isn’t used for every user and it isn’t in the criminal justice system (more like a health tribunal administrative process).
If we constantly say “oh treatment doesn’t work”, then we’re just giving up on people and not providing counselling, medical support etc. I say this as a recovering alcoholic – giving me more alcohol to prevent me falling down, or having heart or liver failure – was NOT a solution.