The biggest health crisis of our times: How the government decides to handle the opioid crisis

In December last year, Conservative Member of Parliament John Barlow delivered a very fierce speech in the House of Commons related someone very dear to him who had taken an excess dosage of Calgary near his riding of Foothills.
Barlow mentioned we had to break into her flat. The memory of the incident, when and how I saw her there, her facial expressions and her condition have all been permanently imprinted on my mind.
He continued to explain how the woman was taken to the hospital by him and his wife.
At that time I was not thinking how I could have taken her to a better hospital or have arranged a better treatment for her, in fact, I think I wish that Calgary was banned. Barlow mentioned now we should put the treatment of such people on the top of our priorities list.
Barlow’s speech included some of the points from current discussions, and variation in views, over how to handle the problems regarding excessive usage of opioid and the supply of smuggled and prohibited drugs.
Public health specialists and defenders claim that harm shrinkage tools like controlled and monitored consumption sites are important for keeping people alive and are a major form of proof-based treatment choices. At the same time, many moderate bureaucrats and law imposing officials believe that cracking down on the supply and cure should be the first major priority.
The leading federal parties carry a lot of ideas on how to handle the opioid issues, which has become the reason for about 11,000 deaths all around Canada since 2016.
With increasing death rates because of opioids, the government had to look after the matter. Although the Liberals have still not discharged their 2019 electoral platform.

, ,