Flawed reports can harm: the case of supervised consumption services in Alberta

Abstract

Supervised consumption services have been scaled up within Canada and internationally as an ethical imperative in the context of a public health emergency. A large body of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrates that these services prevent poisoning deaths, reduce infectious disease transmission risk behaviour, and facilitate clients’ connections to other health and social services. In 2019, the Alberta government commissioned a review of the socioeconomic impacts of seven supervised consumption services in the province. The report is formatted to appear as an objective, scientifically credible evaluation of these services; however, it is fundamentally methodologically flawed, with a high risk of biases that critically undermine its authors’ assessment of the scientific evidence. The report’s findings have been used to justify decisions that jeopardize the health and well-being of people who use drugs both in Canada and internationally. Governments must ensure that future assessments of supervised consumption services and other public health measures to address drug poisoning deaths are scientifically sound and methodologically rigorous. Health policy must be based on the best available evidence, protect the right of structurally vulnerable populations to access healthcare, and not be contingent on favourable public opinion or prevailing political ideology.