A Victoria father wants the power to force his 15-year-old daughter into a drug-rehabilitation facility. He fears for her life, because the girl has become a heroin addict, and might also have used fentanyl. She’s been hospitalized at least twice for overdose treatment.
Seven provinces, including Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, have legislation permitting kids to be admitted involuntarily to detox centres. But no such option exists in B.C.
This year, Gordon Hogg, the retiring MLA for Surrey-White Rock, tabled a Safe Care Act, which would have created the required authority. However, the bill died when the election was called.
Moreover, Stephanie Cadieux, minister of children and family development, said her government had no intention of proceeding in this direction. She said voluntary treatment has proved more successful.
It’s not strictly correct to say kids with drug problems cannot be confined. They frequently are — in provincial lock-ups after a run-in with the police.
But this is the worst of all worlds. Treatment is scant or non-existent, and they emerge with a criminal record that will dog them for life. Short of that, forcible intervention is not permissible if a child over 12 refuses help.
As with just about every issue raised by drug addiction, there is no easy answer here. Teenagers at the best of times lack an adult sense of consequences. If they’ve become addicted, their thought processes are even less reliable. In emergency situations, standing by and letting a child die of a fentanyl overdose is surely not acceptable.
On the other hand, teenagers inevitably react in a hostile manner to forcible treatment. There are also civil-liberty issues to contend with. Should parents retain the right to impose a course of action when their child approaches adulthood?
But most significant, there is little evidence that, by itself, forcing teenagers into detox facilities does much good. This is the argument Cadieux put forward.
However, that is not the end of the matter. Alberta has had success using involuntary confinement, if — and this is the critical point — the child is then provided with follow-up services.
In this model, parents can apply for a court ruling to have their child admitted. Many of these kids have been living on the street, without adequate shelter or nutrition. They might have caught a sexually transmitted disease.
The purpose of the forcible confinement, which lasts 10 days, is to stabilize the situation. Medication is available to treat withdrawal symptoms, and proper food and care are provided.
Upon their release, a network of community-based services kicks in, to offer counselling, mental-health care, intensive day treatment at outpatient facilities, and referrals to volunteer organizations that work in this field. Parents also get advice on how to re-establish trust with kids.
Fewer than half of the teenagers who go through this program end up being re-admitted to involuntary care. That is by no means a perfect score, but it does suggest that teens can be successfully weaned off drugs, if sufficient resources are marshalled.
Regrettably, B.C. has made only rudimentary steps in this direction. There are voluntary residential-care facilities in several Vancouver Island communities, but nothing approaching the fully integrated program that Alberta has developed.
B.C.’s former children’s representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, made this point when she noted that teens were dying because they fell through the cracks of mental-health and addiction treatment. The arrival of fentanyl — and more dangerous drugs still to come — has made the crisis worse.
Whether involuntary care is appropriate remains debatable. What is not debatable is that our existing measures are completely inadequate.
