Abstract

The establishment of supervised consumption sites (SCS) is one policy approach used to address Canada’s growing, national opioid epidemic. Despite the abundance of evidence which demonstrates the numerous public health benefits gained from the existence of SCS, only five of ten Canadian provinces have established SCS. Using Alberta and Manitoba as comparators, the paper seeks to explain the difference in policy outcomes. The paper begins with a brief overview of the history of harm reduction policy in Canada and establishes what the goals of the Alberta and Manitoba governments were in their respective policy approaches to respond to the opioid epidemic. Using John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, this paper compares the political and policy contexts of Alberta and Manitoba to determine what factors have contributed to the divergence in policy outcomes, whereby Alberta has established SCS while Manitoba has not. The comparative analysis reveals that the framing of the opioid epidemic as a public health matter, the alignment of the establishment of SCS with the provincial government’s values, and political will are all necessary conditions for the establishment of SCS. This paper concludes by discussing the implications of these results for the establishment of SCS in other Canadian provinces. Ouvrir des sites de consommation supervisee (SCS) est une approche utilisee pour affronter l’epidemie nationale croissante d’opioides au Canada. En depit de l’abondance d’evidence demontrant les benefices pour la sante publique de ces SCS, seuls cinq des dix provinces canadiennes en ont etablis. En utilisant l’Alberta et le Manitoba comme comparateurs, cet article cherche a expliquer les differences de politiques. L’article commence par presenter brievement l’histoire de la politique de reduction des dommages au Canada et montre quels buts les gouvernements de l’Alberta et du Manitoba s’etaient assignes dans leurs approches politiques respectives pour repondre a l’epidemie des opioides. Suivant le schema des courants multiples de John Kingdon, cet article compare les contextes politiques et les processus de prise de decision politique en Alberta et au Manitoba afin de determiner quels facteurs ont contribue a la divergence des politiques mises en place, a savoir que l’Alberta a etabli des SCS, mais pas le Manitoba. L’analyse comparative revele que positionner l’epidemie d’opioides comme un probleme de sante publique compte, et que l’alignement de la mise en place de SCS avec les valeurs du gouvernement provincial, ainsi que la volonte politique sont des conditions necessaires pour la mise en place de SCS. Cet article conclue en discutant les consequences de ces observations pour la mise en place de SCS dans les autres provinces canadiennes.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.