Council hears pro and con on involuntary care motion

Council hears pro and con on involuntary care motion

23-10-24 9:07 p.m.

COBOURG

Supporting and opposing views of Cobourg council's recent motion of support for involuntary care were heard this week.

Two speakers at Cobourg council this week expressed differing reactions to council's motion last month supporting involuntary care for individuals with severe mental health and addiction issues.

Speaking against was registered social worker (as well as Moms Stop The Harm national board member) Missy McLean, who credited council with good motives for the move – though she urged them to reconsider.

Two speakers at Cobourg council this week expressed differing reactions to council's motion last month supporting involuntary care for individuals with severe mental health and addiction issues.

Speaking against was registered social worker (as well as Moms Stop The Harm national board member) Missy McLean, who credited council with good motives for the move – though she urged them to reconsider.

Ontario already provides for involuntary detention in cases where a physician recommends detention and evaluation, McLean pointed out. These are cases where an individual presents a threat to himself or others. Otherwise, she said, the latest research indicates “accessible and voluntary treatment wins out over force.”

In support of this, she cited figures from British Columbia, where one in three of those involuntarily detained out of concern for their opioid use are back at it within a day of release.

What is needed is detox beds and public, affordable treatment facilities, she said, neither of which exist in Northumberland County.

Councillor Adam Bureau spoke from the perspective of someone who had struggled with opioid addiction and wore a fentanyl patch.

“The reason I supported this motion was because, in my opinion, they are not in control of themselves,” Bureau said.

“They are also not in a right frame of mind to make correct decisions for themselves.”

McLean countered that their distress is often the result of multiple factors that often include the lack of affordable safe shelter, food security and a livable income.

“They are not in control of themselves when they are like that,” Bureau reiterated.

He cited the recent example of the home in the Chipping Park subdivision that was emptied of individuals with substance-abuse problems.

“They weren't doing good, they were doing drugs – and harms to the neighbourhood,” he said.

“They wake up every day going for their fix.”

Speaking in favour of council's support for involuntary detention were Vivian Vandenhazel and James Bisson.

Vandenhazel referred to the brain damage and mental illness that can result from drug use, such individuals refusing to recognize what is in their own best interests.

She then addressed the behaviour at the Brookside encampment, which she resides near, and the year of seeing drug use, public defecation, littering “and outright defiance of social mores.

“Having human rights is one thing, but allowing a few to cause utter chaos is unacceptable,” Vandenhazel stated.

Bisson described how the involuntary psychiatric care his brother received saved his life, and referred to “the compassionate intervention” when people are at a point where they can't take care of themselves.

“The mandatory requirement is for severe cases,” he said.

“We're not talking about going around and picking up people off the streets just because they are acting funny.”