Prisons and harm reduction–Deadly disregard?

The Journal of the Canadian Medical Association has an article entitled Deadly Disregard on the absence of needle exchanges in Canadian Prisons. It includes the following line:

Public comment commonly proceeds on the premise, sometimes stated but often assumed, that conviction removes all rights and that prisoners are entitled to little consideration once incarcerated.

Wow. People who object to the implementation of a needle exchange in a prison setting are simply indifferent to the human rights of prisoners?

How about responding the problem of addicted inmates in a manner other than an accounting exercise that reduces their well being to a count of infections? How about responding to the problem of addicted inmates with something other than the cheapest solution? (I suppose it really comes down to how you define the problem. Is it addiction, or disease transmission?)

Aren’t prison and parole great opportunities for intervention. What about providing treatment on demand?

One thought on “Prisons and harm reduction–Deadly disregard?

  1. How about objecting to needles and drugs getting to prisoners in the first place? Isn’t that indifference to both law and humane incarceration?

Comments are closed.