March 1 2003
By Sharon Mathieson
Canberra
The Prime Minister's senior drug adviser has proposed new laws that would allow drug addicts to be detained against their will and forced to dry out.
Major Brian Watters, chairman of the Australian National Council on Drugs, yesterday said families should be able to seek help for children and relatives whose drug addictions were out of control.
"I would expect it should be a similar process (to) that (which) is being used in the mental hospital where a person can be put into protective custody and able to undergo treatment in a facility that they can't walk out of," he said. "There's a popular belief that you can't help somebody unless they really want to be helped. But the truth is almost every serious drug addict I've ever spoken to has said they'd like to stop."
Major Watters said the idea to force drug addicts to be locked up to undergo treatment was sparked when he had a phone call from a distraught mother whose drug-addicted daughter was constantly in and out of hospital with disease and overdoses. "The mother pleaded with me, 'Isn't there some way we can make her go to treatment?'," he said. "And I believe there should be."
Major Watters said addicts were incapable of making the decision to dry out but if it was forced on them lives would be saved. "This is not an uncompassionate suggestion," he said. "It's trying to help people and save people's lives."
Victorian drug user support group Vivaids yesterday opposed the scheme, which Major Watters has already proposed to Justice Minister Chris Ellison.
Vivaids manager Jill Meade said there was no evidence that forcing people to have treatment was any more effective than not forcing them, and that people often reacted negatively when forced to do something.
"This is about forcing people to have treatment and people have treatment choices and people have rights," she said.
Senator Ellison said last night that he believed diversionary programs, which oblige defendants in drug-related criminal cases to choose treatment or punishment, already offered a measure of compulsion.
But the Commonwealth did not have the jurisdiction to enact laws for the compulsory detention and treatment of drug users generally, he said.
Major Watters said he would be happy to discuss the idea with Mr Howard and hoped Senator Ellison would raise it with the Government. "I would hope that somewhere along the line we might be able to overcome this idea that you're imposing on people's civil rights, you're uncompassionate and you're trying to take a hard line, because no one would say that if you're dealing with a seriously mentally ill person," he said.
Labor justice spokesman Daryl Melham slammed Major Watters' idea, saying it was counterproductive and would threaten the hard-won gains in Australian public health. "This simplistic approach just won't work . . . Major Watters is trapped in a policy time warp," he said.
Mr Melham said the United Nations' HIV/AIDS program had condemned countries such as China for locking up drug users.
"Not only does Major Watters' idea make a mockery of our international obligations to respect human rights, it also does not make any sense," he said.
- with Annabel Crabb and Andra Jackson
Now I feel the need to explain the rationale behind involuntary detention of the mentally ill, as Mjr. Watter's uses this example to support his argument. Involuntary detention of persons with a mental illness is carefull controlled, and only used in more extreme circumstances. Having said that, it is commonly used, but that says more about the nature of certain mental illnesses than it does about our system.
Basically, in Victoria, 5 criteria must be met before a person with MI is involuntarily detained. One of these (I won't go into all of them) is that because of the persons MI they are a risk to themselves or others. If you applied that criteria to a drug user, well you would have to lock up every drug user and every alcohol drinker, because potentially each time you use either could put you at risk. Basically, the risk here is chronic, not acute, so how would you know who to lock up and who to leave on the street?
In addition, the nature of certain MI's often means the person does not realise they are unwell. This can be true for both mood disorders and psychotic disorders. Often, it is actually more humane to be able to treat such a person without their consent, than it is to leave them suffering. Also, the illness may effect the individuals judgement to the point where they can not make rational decisions about their behaviour or need for treatment.
Clearly, the two instances (detention of persons with MI vs. those with substance abuse) are poles apart, and for Mjr. Watter's to compare the two just displays his ignorance on the issue. *sighs*
