Chuck/Chris (00:01.436)
Hello everybody, watchers, listeners, supporters of all kinds. Welcome to another episode of The Weekend Rumble on the Ashes to Awesome podcast. I'm your host Chuck LaFlandre, Chris Porter, whatever you want to call me, checking in from crabby Thailand. Of course, being The Weekend Rumble, halfway around the world is my lovely co -host, Dr. Lisa Waukee. How are doing today, Lisa?

Lisa (00:17.996)
I'm good. I'm, you know, we've, we've little peek behind the scenes, right? We've been chatting for a while. And like I just said to you guys, like for me, this is like, I feel like a weekly pep talk. Like, I feel like, I don't know, this every week, just makes me gives me hope brightens my day. And so I'm happy to be here.

Chuck/Chris (00:39.366)
Awesome, awesome, always happy to have you. And of course, our guest today back for another episode, our monthly episode as it were, is Angie Hamilton from FAR Canada. How you doing today, Angie? Good.

Angie Hamilton (00:50.402)
I'm great. I echo Lisa's comments. It's very validating, I find and I always learn. So yeah, it's good to be here.

Chuck/Chris (00:58.386)
I'm kidding. That's the learning. I'll speak to the learning for just a quick second. And we kind of spoke about it pre -recorded in the early part of our conversation, but for myself, my opinions, and this is very relevant to what we're going to talk about today, or at least start talking about today. My opinions have evolved, I hope evolved is the right word, so much since starting this podcast and having people like Dr. Lisa, yourself, Siddi, all the different guests that we have on the show, Rob Tangay,

Devon, RIP Devon, right? Rest in peace. Like what he did for my opinions and my learning as far as addiction goes and specifically recovery, he's still very, very present in this show, right? Very, very present. So I love the learning piece, Ange. I really do. I really do, right? Yeah, and you contribute a lot to that. Well, with your, and we're gonna stroke your ego again here for the second time this morning. You're balanced and so.

Angie Hamilton (01:47.14)
too.

Chuck/Chris (01:57.65)
so well articulated opinions. So we do appreciate you for that. All that said, I think it's a funny thing. It's not a funny thing. It's a peculiar thing. What I do wanna talk about today is 13 year old Brianna McDonald who passed away last month in the Vancouver area. I'm not sure, I think maybe Surrey, somewhere in the Greater Vancouver area. As a result of an overdose, died alone in a homeless camp.

which is a story that we are way too familiar with. The aspect of this story, her parents, Brianna, or I'm sorry, I can't remember her parents' names right now, Sarah and Bruce, came out on the news and spoke about their journey trying to help their daughter and how they had begged Fraser Health to hold her, to mandate her into treatment or to whatever, to commit her into psychiatric care because they could see.

Lisa (02:37.496)
Sarah and Bruce.

Chuck/Chris (02:55.634)
a tragedy unfolding before their eyes. They were living it. shouldn't say they could see it. They were living this tragedy that ended. How one might suspect if you take a step back and look at it from a macro lens.

There's so much I could say about that. Lisa, do you want to jump in or just, I'm already starting to get emotional, so I'm going to wait. I'm going to breathe a bit when I stop thinking about this, if you want to jump in with something.

Lisa (03:26.136)
It's yeah, I mean, where do we even begin, right? There's like so much to be said about that. I don't work in British Columbia. So I don't, you know, I don't know all the sort of rules around certification. And there are like nuances province to province in terms of how these things are done. And so I don't, you know, and also I fully appreciate that I

Angie Hamilton (03:35.876)
just love ya.

Lisa (03:55.372)
did not see this patient in the hospital, I didn't assess them, I don't know their records, I don't know any of that stuff. So I've had the experience myself where people will describe a situation that I am very privy to, and I will know that that there's a lot of missing details. So I preface it by saying like, I don't know the intimate details of that. But I can tell you that if if there was a young child in Alberta,

Angie Hamilton (04:13.55)
I said.

Lisa (04:25.694)
who was actively using substances like this and whose parents were pleading with them to be held in hospital, know, parents can make those decisions in Alberta. Parents have the authority, they are treated, they are the guardians of a child that age. There's even the option where for me, if I had a child whose safety I was concerned about and the parents were not supportive of them holding the child in hospital,

then I would have the option as a physician to go to the Office of Public Guardian and express that I feel that this child's unsafe, that this child needs to be held in hospital against their wishes, and that I don't agree with the parent's decision to remove the child. And then, you know, there's sort of an order of people that you go to.

in it with a child, obviously first is parents where you would ask parents to sort of be the ones making decisions. But we do have the ability to explore bypassing, you know, the people who you would expect to make decisions if we feel the decisions are unsafe. So I don't really get, you know, how a 12 year old would be allowed to leave hospital and make their own health decisions. I don't, yeah, I don't, I don't get it.

Chuck/Chris (05:50.386)
And are you aware, I'm assuming you're not, you don't have intimate knowledge of the laws in BC, but perhaps you do for Ontario anyway, if you can make a comparison to what Lisa just said.

Angie Hamilton (06:02.532)
I think, no, our laws are not like that. They should be. But we have the whole concept of mature minor. it comes down to what physicians are so important, because it comes down to what the physician thinks. And if the physician thinks the child has capacity to make their own treatment decisions, then they just look to the child.

And I can tell you they tend to do that. In fact, we have recent research from CAMH, which is our main mental health hospital. they looked at, they did a study. if a hospital says, a doctor says, you don't have capacity to make treatment decisions in Ontario, you can.

question that and you get a lawyer and you have to go to the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board within like seven days or whatever. And so people often do question if they're being told you don't have capacity. This is adults and children, but it's usually adults. And they looked at

Not all cases are reported, but about 10 % of the cases are reported. And that equalled from 2003 when they started to record decisions to 2023, which was the time they looked at, almost 20 years. There were over 10 ,000 written decisions. And they looked at how often words were used that would indicate

treatment for a substance use disorder, particular opioid use disorder or alcohol use disorder. So methadone, suboxone, buprenorphine, those kinds of terms, alcohol use disorder, substance use, opioid use disorder. And what they found was that there were only like 70 cases where those terms showed up. And there was actually just one case.

Angie Hamilton (08:23.364)
One case recorded in the last 20 years where they held that someone didn't have capacity to make treatment decisions with respect to substance use disorder. And they basically concluded, the author who was at Chem -H, that this is an indication that there could be a gap in assessing capacity, which could be for substance use disorder, which could be really bad with respect to opioid use disorder, we're in the middle of a toxist.

toxic drug crisis. So my interpretation of that is physicians aren't assessing for capacity to make treatment decisions. Okay. And to me, so what I'm saying is, I think that that case could absolutely happen here. I know that there are cases and the problem is, you know, someone like me, even though I'm really interested and I want to know, you only hear about it if it's if it's in the paper.

And there was a case about three or no God, you know, I always say it was yesterday and that was like 10 years ago, but I'm going to go with like four years ago where a 14 year old overdosed, you know, was in hospital. They revived her and they just let her go. And the next day she overdosed and died. And so could this happen in Ontario? 100%.

Chuck/Chris (09:43.302)
Has it happened? Almost certainly. Right? You know, yeah, right, yeah.

Lisa (09:43.51)
Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (09:45.496)
Well, it happened to that person. so like I would say, like my question for Lisa is, I don't think the proper amount of time is spent for either ER docs or...

psychiatrist, learning how to assess capacity to make treatment decisions with respect to substance use disorder. And I've heard you say it before, like, if you look at the person's behavior, and you what they're telling you, and what their behavior is, you can see they lack capacity, right? But that's it's just not happening. And when it comes down to a 12 or 13 year old, it is absolutely mind boggling to me. So

Lisa (10:21.592)
Mm

Lisa (10:32.982)
Mm -hmm.

Angie Hamilton (10:33.806)
Canada has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. And there are three sections there that are relevant to this. And the first one is section three, which says all of our laws have to be drafted in the best interest of the child. All of our laws. We do that with respect to criminal justice, like juvenile detention and all that. It's a basic principle, best interest of the child. And it's in our child welfare system, best interest of the child, in the pre -Amazon Act.

You know where it isn't? It isn't in the medical profession. It is not in anything in the medical profession. So best interest of the child, not relevant. If the child has capacity to make treatment decisions, it's not relevant. No matter how young, if the doctor says they've got capacity, that's a problem. It's been identified as a problem in a conference in 2009 and nothing has happened. And it said we would need

Lisa (11:07.745)
Interesting.

Angie Hamilton (11:30.5)
major revisions to our our what did they call what basically the guidelines that doctors use. Okay. To see this happen to put the best interest of the child first. Okay. So that's number one, that's Article Three. But then we got 12, which says they have a right to medical treatment. And then we have Article 33, which says we have a duty to protect them from illegal substances and the illegal drug trade.

Now, I don't know what a 12 or 13 year old's doing to get their drugs, but they're not working to get their drugs. Okay? So what the hell are they doing? They're probably, they could be being sexually exploited or they're trafficking or they're stealing. Right? And so, you know, my question to...

Chuck/Chris (12:18.994)
Right. Yeah. Yep.

Angie Hamilton (12:26.488)
Because they did say in the the articles that I read on this and you know, with respect to Brianna, they said that the physicians determined that she had capacity to make treatment decisions. And what I would like to know is, show me show me that show me what questions they asked and how they determined because to me it's something like this, it should go something like this. Do you want to die? She would say no. Do you want to go to jail? She would say no.

How are you acquiring your substances? What is happening? Well, assuming that she answered reasonably, what you would see is someone who is absolutely at serious risk of harm. She doesn't want the harm. She doesn't want to die. She doesn't want to go to jail. But her behavior, as you would say, Lisa, is

indicative that one of the other is going to happen. So to me, she doesn't have capacity to make treatment decisions because she can't make the decisions that's going to avoid the outcomes that she wants to avoid. Instead, think psychiatrists go well, she's ambivalent whether she lives or die. So that's okay. That's not suicidality. Well, okay, it's not suicidality. Does she have capacity to make treatment decisions? Is she able to look after herself? Because I'm pretty sure being alone in a tent

Lisa (13:46.732)
Mm

Angie Hamilton (13:52.58)
At 13 is an adverse childhood experience.

Right? So you're choosing, you're saying she's choosing these adverse childhood experiences. And it's not a choice as we know, it's like there's something wrong. but you know, also where would they have sent her? You know, cause I can hear the other side, can't keep her in hospital forever. And you shouldn't be keeping her in, she didn't need to be in hospital forever. She might have needed hospital initially to be stabilized.

Chuck/Chris (13:59.719)
To say the least.

Angie Hamilton (14:26.18)
But what she needed, you know what they have in the States and yeah, there can be problems fully acknowledging it depends where you go. Some places are great and some are horrible. They have therapeutic boarding schools. I would like to start the conversation about what therapeutic boarding schools do and their purpose and why we need them in Canada. Because a 12 and 13 year old shouldn't be locked up in a psych ward for years. They should be

in the least restrictive environment that is the most normal for a kid, which is school. And that's what they have in the States. They have therapeutic boarding schools. Can they walk out? Well, if they walk out, they're gonna be brought back. And that's usually enough to have them not run. And there isn't like a big fence with barbed wire at the top. Often they're in remote locations that are beautiful.

And everybody, can just hear the, I can hear the screams. my God, what's going on there? You know, you can set up a system that respects their rights and protects them and provides compassionate evidence -based treatment. I'm sick of hearing, but we've always done it wrong. But this is an extension of prohibition and punishment. Treatment is punishment.

Lisa (15:24.312)
Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (15:47.36)
If you don't treat them, if he set it up like forced labor in China or something, you know, and you call it treatment, yeah, that's not going to help and that's going to be harmful.

Chuck/Chris (15:57.884)
Well, even that article that we've been both commenting on on LinkedIn, did you look at the image on that article? It's a prison with razor wire.

Angie Hamilton (16:08.718)
Yeah, you're right! I completely forgot! Right!

Chuck/Chris (16:11.792)
Right, so right away you're invoking, it's no wonder people get up in arms right away about what this looks like. If this is the image, it's yeah, right. So I don't think for a second that was done without intent, right, of course, right.

Angie Hamilton (16:18.5)
Thank you, Thank you, media.

Lisa (16:19.266)
Hmm.

Angie Hamilton (16:26.978)
Great. Yeah.

Lisa (16:27.028)
Yeah. And like, where does that come from? Like, why is it that there are people who want to believe that providing treatment to people who cannot make the best decisions for themselves is going to be mean and unfair and unethical and, you know, like, I don't know, maybe I'm a dreamer. But it's like,

Chuck/Chris (16:52.562)
Well, historically though, historically mandated treatment has meant, right? And it's the reason that there's a lack of evidence about mandated treatment working is because it has meant prisons and institutions and, right? So you can see, I can see how they justify that position, maybe more, because that's, Yes, 100%, 100 % it does.

Lisa (17:11.458)
But I feel like the focus needs to be on demanding better, on going, we can do this right. And if we all put all the energy that gets exerted in these stupid arguments towards collectively thinking about how do we do this right? know, have people with lived experience, have people who've worked in treatment centers.

Angie Hamilton (17:14.98)
Christ. No.

Chuck/Chris (17:22.848)
Ooh, shots fired.

Lisa (17:37.196)
have nurses and doctors and lawyers and social workers and ethicists. These people all exist. Like, get these people together and brainstorm how to do this properly. I don't actually think it's rocket science. I think it is very attainable. And I think that there are people from all of those backgrounds willing to come to the table to do this. But instead, we like to just rather focus on arguing that we can't do it.

Chuck/Chris (18:07.716)
Absolutely. I think in Alberta right now, the impression I get, at least that's what they're selling to the public, is that's what they're trying to do with all these different ministries being under one umbrella, right? All these different departments and organizations. So maybe there's some hope there. Again, let's see what happens. I don't want to be too optimistic about what's going on there, but I think that's what they're trying to do, or at least what they're trying to portray is that conglomeration of professionals and stakeholders and everybody else, right?

Angie Hamilton (18:31.043)
Mm

Lisa (18:35.692)
Yeah. Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (18:37.252)
Yeah, the one thing I'm really curious about with the Alberta model, and I don't know, and Lisa, maybe you do know. So these like 11 therapeutic communities, where people are going to be going voluntarily, is that where they're going to send people who are going in voluntarily? Or is the idea that they're going to create unique spaces for the people who are there involuntarily? I'd like to know that because I can say, you know,

Lisa (19:03.574)
don't know the answer to that. Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (19:06.756)
once when my son was in treat treatment in the States voluntarily at a very nice place that we were paying thousands of dollars a month for him to be there, right beside him was someone court mandated to be there. And that person did not run and he participated. And so to me, you know, what a successful system looks like is one where people might not want to go. But it's therapeutic.

so they want to stay, right?

Chuck/Chris (19:37.948)
Well, what changed my mind on all of this was Lisa saying right off the bat, one of first things she said, this has to be holistic, or we're not talking about treatment, we're talking about punishment. So, Lisa, I'm sorry I interrupted you. were gonna say something.

Angie Hamilton (19:48.366)
Great.

Lisa (19:52.824)
No, was just going to say even, you know, ARC, right? So I know a family who have a child in the ARC program right now. So he's an adolescent. think he's, I think he's, you know, 15 or something in that ballpark. He ran twice in the first month that he was in the program and was brought back. And he ran and he was brought back.

Angie Hamilton (20:00.142)
Thank

Lisa (20:21.152)
And now I think they're about three or four months into the program.

He's sober. He's safe. He's healthy.

He's not running. He's happier. And now he wants to be there. But if we had spoken to him in that first month, he would have been able to string his sentences together beautifully. He would have told you, I don't need this. I don't want this. know, either I want to do drugs or I just don't need help to not do drugs. He would have told you one of these

Chuck/Chris (20:36.306)
and he's participating.

Lisa (21:00.728)
classic sort of stories that makes people go, well, this is what he wants to do. You know, when in reality, mandating him through that early phase when he was really struggling has now gotten him to a place that he's thankful to be at.

Angie Hamilton (21:06.862)
within reality.

and dating him through that early stage.

Angie Hamilton (21:18.701)
Exactly.

Lisa (21:20.92)
Like to me, it's just like, what more do people who have not been in his shoes want to sit around and argue about, you know, what he wanted on day one or day 14? It's like, well, then you explain to me how he got to the day he's at right now.

Chuck/Chris (21:20.967)
I

Angie Hamilton (21:21.591)
It's just like...

Chuck/Chris (21:40.42)
And that's the fundamental problem, one of a few. I have what the argument from the other side of it says, people have a right, people have a, to say that is to indicate that these people are happy. That somebody living in severe opioid addiction is happy throughout their prostitution themselves, stealing, grinding, whatever they're doing, living a horribly unfulfilling near -death life is happy and they have the right to do that.

Lisa (22:05.496)
Chaotic. Yeah.

Chuck/Chris (22:09.766)
No, they have a right to live better than that is what they have. They have a right that society will jump in and say, what you're doing to yourself is not okay. What you're doing to the community is not okay. Let's bring you in and help you get to a place where you can do better for yourself. These people are not happy. I can tell you, I was an opioid in minor stimulant. It was not happy. It was hell. It was hell. People are not happy living like that.

Sorry. Go ahead.

Chuck/Chris (22:46.79)
Somebody jumped in, got weird.

Angie Hamilton (22:47.884)
Okay, so, so, well, I mean, I agree with you completely. And I'm, I am, you know, as a parent and a peer supporter of other parents, really sick and tired of some who are or claim to be experts in human rights, not seeming to understand that they are fighting for the rights of people with substance use disorder, to kill themselves or harm other people and go to jail.

right? And that's because I'm so sick of this, the rights, right? And, you know, in terms of where it came from, I think a good part of it is because even if you don't have a problem, if you use illegal drugs, you're a criminal, right? And so I think there is fear among people who don't have a problem that they're going to find themselves, you know,

being mandated treatment when they don't have a problem. All right. And I really don't think that is going to happen because frankly, they don't want to treat the people who are killing themselves and killing other people. So why would they want to mandate treatment for someone who doesn't want it? I mean, come on, this is not this is not a real problem. Right. And and so there's no nuance. There is no nuance in the discussion of what is a human rights approach.

Chuck/Chris (23:52.593)
Yeah, yeah.

Chuck/Chris (23:59.762)
Who doesn't need it? Who doesn't need it, suppose. Yeah, yeah.

Angie Hamilton (24:10.51)
to substance use versus substance use disorder. Okay, so I get it with respect to substance use. They wanna say, know, society has imposed these crazy rules about which drugs are legal to use and okay, and which aren't. And you know, and that's wrong. And people who want to non -problematically use drugs that are currently illegal.

should be entitled to and they should be entitled to a regulated supply. And I understand those arguments and that's something different. But the people who have a problem, there doesn't seem to be any recognition that one, they exist, two, that it's an illness, three, that there's a possibility and a probability if you work at it long enough and have the right supports, that they're going to recover from it. And so it comes from a place where they have

they can only see the harms of prohibition and they have lost capacity to see the harms of the drugs themselves. And honestly, there is this hyper -focus on the person with substance use disorder and everybody else be damned. Like who cares about the families, who cares about the community, it's all about just this person. And you know, I think the situation that drives me the most crazy is where because, know, say,

parents of kids are so sick, cannot look after the kids and they're not seeking treatment. And so the grandparents are raising the grandchildren. And when we say the only thing that matters is whether the parents are ready for treatment or not. I don't think that's that. Why? Why is that the most important thing? I don't think that's the most important thing. I think the most important thing is all three generations there.

really want the parents to be raising their kids. The grandparents want it. I totally believe the parents want it and the kids want it. And what we've done instead is we've said, well, there's no rights and no harms that are significant enough to be worried about at the grandparent and grandchild level. And at the parent level, even though it is tremendously harming the parents to have their parents raising their kids, all that matters is if the parents are ready.

Angie Hamilton (26:33.922)
Because if the parents aren't ready, there's no point. And so you better have profound and long conclusive evidence that involuntary treatment doesn't work. And we know that we don't have that anymore. And by the way, because I'm an author on the paper in December of last year that looked, it's the biggest systemic review on the effectiveness of involuntary treatment.

Lisa (26:49.396)
No.

Angie Hamilton (27:03.052)
And I cannot say it said, yes, it works. But it said, we can't say whether it works or not. We also can't say it doesn't work because the research is wanting. there are so many problems with how we determine what is a positive outcome or not. And basically, who are all these people getting evidence -based treatment? Because they're not, right? They're not getting evidence -based treatment. Yeah.

Chuck/Chris (27:28.602)
Yeah, it's not even a thing that's been done. how can you say it doesn't work?

Angie Hamilton (27:33.216)
But you know, like I think the Redfish Healing Center is a really good model. Like, you know, that seems to be a situation where it's been done right. And then people go, my god, it's so expensive. Well, what's the cost of, you know, rotating ER visits, and, and jail and homelessness, those are more expensive than getting well, right. And yes, we have to have wraparound services, and they don't really exist right now. But

Lisa (27:50.934)
Mm

Angie Hamilton (28:00.028)
Look, just I don't see, you know, when you look at what the purpose of mandated treatment is, and our mental health acts, it is to provide a solution where either people lack capacity to make treatment decisions, and or they're serious risk of harm to themselves or others. And the and right now, like there's there is precedent that that doesn't mean they're at imminent.

risk of death. It's much broader. In Ontario, we recently had a case where they looked at the fact that the mother would have been homeless. So

How is it an answer to that to say, involuntary treatment doesn't work?

So you're saying we're not gonna protect people who lack capacity and we're gonna let people harm to death and kill others. And we're gonna say, this is what a compassionate, evidence -based, rights -based approaches. That is complete BS. And it's not what we do. If someone's at the edge of a bridge about to jump,

Chuck/Chris (28:42.076)
Lisa? sorry.

Angie Hamilton (29:05.24)
We don't talk about what poor decisions brought them to the bridge today or have to say they have to hit rock bottom or they have to want help or autonomy is king. They have a right to jump. But if they're killing themselves with substances, we say all those stupid things, right? Like where are these people on people jumping off of bridges? Why aren't they going like bodily autonomy? They want to splat on the pavement. I'm sorry, but it's just, you

Lisa (29:20.511)
Yeah.

Chuck/Chris (29:28.935)
It's, you're right though. It's not even hyperbole or exaggeration to go there. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

Lisa (29:30.248)
It is like, feel like we need to send her a, we need to send Angie a microphone because she needs to hold it up and just go.

And then we just end the podcast. We're like, done. Mic drop, Angie out. Like, seriously. No, but it's so true. It's so true. And you know, one of the other things, because you said so many things, and now I'm like, I should have been taking notes of all the things I wanted to touch on. one of the things that I find really, yeah.

Chuck/Chris (29:42.118)
Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (29:45.856)
I get a little carried away, but it is true. It is true.

Chuck/Chris (29:50.276)
It's, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Chuck/Chris (30:03.036)
Be worried if a psychiatrist is taking notes while you talk. Always be worried.

Angie Hamilton (30:05.59)
Yeah, exactly.

Lisa (30:09.844)
One of the things that bugs me is this argument that we don't have available services, therefore we shouldn't do it. Like, I just.

Chuck/Chris (30:21.639)
If it was anything else, we would be asking how to, not whether or not we should. Right? Yeah.

Lisa (30:25.782)
And the thing is, is that we should do the right thing by people and the system will need, we need to figure that out. But if we turn people away, people who we know need help, but we turn them away because we don't have the services, then do you think we're ever going to have the services?

Angie Hamilton (30:47.638)
Right. And it's not just that, but it's because we're going to prioritize the rights of people who want the treatment over the rights of the people who don't want the treatment, you know, because they both need the treatment if they're going to have a hope, right.

Lisa (31:02.56)
Yeah, yeah. And you almost have to also wonder the people who don't watch the treatment may in fact be the ones who most need the treatment.

Angie Hamilton (31:13.616)
of course, I think that's, that's it. That's it.

Chuck/Chris (31:13.906)
Well, of course, triage says that, right, this is the person that's going to die, right? It's just, yeah, yeah, right. I replied to a post saying something about, you know, we don't have the proper systems in place to protect people, and you and I were speaking about this earlier, a post on LinkedIn that said, I must express this agreement. would like to ask those shaping policies. Are you fully aware of the immense pressure and persistent capacity challenges hospitals face? So to say that.

Hospitals aren't ready for this, so we shouldn't do it. And in my response to that was, the challenges you mentioned are very true and need to be addressed, but if they're associated with any other disease of the brain, where patients capacity to make choices in relation to their safety of themselves and others was in question, aside from SUD, the argument would be about how we're going to address them as opposed to whether or not we are going to address them.

Angie Hamilton (31:56.302)
Mm -hmm.

Lisa (32:05.218)
Like are we telling cancer patients, don't come to the hospital seeking cancer treatment because the hospital's overburdened.

Angie Hamilton (32:12.017)
Right? Yeah.

Chuck/Chris (32:12.688)
No, right? Of course not, of course not.

Lisa (32:14.166)
No, and I think I actually said on the podcast once before, in my mind, everyone line up at the hospital, line up outside the emergency department, line up down the road, around the block, as far as you need to. Like, wouldn't that just get some attention?

Angie Hamilton (32:21.944)
Yeah, he did say that.

Chuck/Chris (32:23.132)
Yep. Yep.

Chuck/Chris (32:32.134)
Of right, of course. But people are, yeah.

Lisa (32:33.824)
You know, say, no, I'm not leaving. I need help. And this is a hospital. And I'm going to stand here until somebody helps me. Now, again, people who have certain illnesses don't have the ability to do that. But if a loved one or the patients themselves of these illnesses that want treatment or deserve treatment or need treatment all stood up,

Angie Hamilton (32:34.436)
I know I'm not leaving. I need

Lisa (33:02.134)
Like, wow, would that be powerful.

Chuck/Chris (33:05.052)
No kidding. I'm kidding.

Lisa (33:06.22)
You know, it's like, let's all go stand on the hill and scream to the hilltops. Like, yeah, it's like, we don't tell people not to come looking for help because the service is not, or is overwhelmed. Then fix it. Get the right people around a table to brainstorm, what do we do about this? It's like I've shared before, like I'll sometimes get messages at the hospital of,

Angie Hamilton (33:22.116)
All right.

Lisa (33:33.878)
You know, the emerge is backlogged. Can we discharge people? And I'm always like, if I could discharge somebody, would have discharged them yesterday. I wouldn't discharge them because you sent me this message. When people are dischargeable, of course I discharge them. Why would they still be here? And I'm always thinking to myself, like, don't come to me in this setting. Go up, go up the ladder. Go say to people, we need more beds. We need more services. We need more.

Angie Hamilton (33:44.782)
Yeah.

charge them.

Lisa (34:02.644)
not to the person who's down on the gutter is trying to help people. Can you hurry up and discharge people because the emerge is backlogged? It's like that's not the answer. The answer is why is the emergency backlogged? The answer is that clearly there's not enough help, not enough services or not the right services. Because again, like you're saying, Angie, what's the cost of having these people just come in and out of the emergency department?

Angie Hamilton (34:09.124)
you can you hurry up and discharge people, because the emerge is not.

Chuck/Chris (34:15.684)
understandable why they would, right? Absolutely.

Angie Hamilton (34:21.617)
it's expensive.

Lisa (34:29.642)
You know, and one of the things they look at at our hospital, and probably many, is they look at as physicians, how long we keep people in hospital. And then they also look at how many of the people we had in hospital come back to hospital. So I can tell you, I'm not the worst actually, but I have one of the longer length of stays, but I have one of the lowest readmission rates. Keep people, right?

Angie Hamilton (34:40.846)
And they also look at how many of the people we have.

Angie Hamilton (34:54.327)
Look at that, eh? Couldn't they publish those stats?

Lisa (34:59.544)
But it's like, if we treat people with what they need, they don't come back.

Angie Hamilton (35:06.669)
Yeah.

Lisa (35:07.262)
you know, yeah.

Lisa (35:16.438)
I know. I feel like some of the sighing and the, it's just like, it's that frustration that I feel like we experience all the time, right? It's just like, I feel like some of this just feels so common sense to me. Like, you know.

Chuck/Chris (35:17.072)
Edge.

Chuck/Chris (35:32.658)
Of course it does. And the more you say it, Lisa, we've been this for a year and a half, the message hasn't changed, some of your examples and where you articulated it has, but the message has been pretty consistent now for year and a half. And the more you say it, the more frustrating it is, right? That I've been hearing it anyway, right?

Lisa (35:49.464)
And I'm sure Angie, like you've probably read the studies that, I don't, I think the last time I actually read all of them was probably about 10 years ago now, but there are studies that have been done, they've been done in Australia, in the US and in Europe where they've actually looked at the cost of treating versus not treating. And every one of these studies,

Angie Hamilton (35:49.624)
So.

Angie Hamilton (36:13.443)
Yes.

Lisa (36:17.688)
has consistently come out showing that for every dollar spent on treating somebody with substance use disorder, that you are saving different studies. I think the lower end was $6, the upper end was 10 or 12, that that is what you're saving when you look into hospital presentations, hospital admissions, legal system, like fees and court time and police officers.

Angie Hamilton (36:27.63)
that you are saving different studies. think the lower...

Yeah, exactly.

Lisa (36:47.572)
Again, and I remember reading this going, I don't get it. Like, these studies are, they're good studies, they're good quality studies, they're consistent in their results. So why do we continue to say we can't afford to treat all these people? It's like, no, we'll save money.

Angie Hamilton (37:05.242)
It's because it's not going to save money in the four -year election cycle. That's how it's been explained to me and pathetically that is probably true. think in terms of making progress, have to say at least now these discussions are happening. They're starting to happen.

Chuck/Chris (37:11.078)
Yep. Yep.

Angie Hamilton (37:28.1)
And we now have a situation where not only is Alberta saying they're gonna do a Compassionate Care Act, but we have BC pretty much regardless of which of the two leading parties gets elected, they're both talking about involuntary treatment for substance use disorder. Now, what it means and how they're going to do it, I don't know. I do share some concerns about that because they haven't built the system.

But they do have Redfish Healing Center, right? And so like that to me is a model of like how it can be done. Except I think for young people. Yeah. So it, yeah, although I'm not an expert either, but I think it opened about a year ago and they treat people, I think everybody has concurrent mental health and addiction issues.

Chuck/Chris (38:01.254)
I'm sorry, Ange, that's the second time you've referenced redfish. I've never heard of it before today. So can you elaborate a bit on that for us, please?

Angie Hamilton (38:21.444)
A lot of them have criminal records and but they are there like about 60 % of them, my understanding is are there involuntarily and they are going to be there for like three to six months and they talk to like the the.

the people around the person who are supporting the person before they go in, they maintain contact the whole time they're there. And they are supposed to be ensuring that there are wraparound services when they leave because there's acknowledgement that if they leave there and just go to the downtown East side, you know, with no housing and no job and no anything to keep them connected, you know, that's a big part of making sure it works and improving outcomes, right?

And it's early days, but it is clearly a system that is treating people with dignity and respect and ensuring they get compassionate evidence -based treatment for long enough that it might have a chance of working. And again, involuntary people in with voluntary people, which I think is a great model personally.

Chuck/Chris (39:34.034)
I just took a quick look, there's 105 beds there. So that's start. mean, population of BC, that's a drop in the proverbial bucket for sure, right? But just because something is complicated and huge and hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try something and just great, great. Nova Scotia has been talking about involuntary treatment now as well, right? I think it was the third province, very loosely though.

Angie Hamilton (39:41.164)
Yes, that's right.

Angie Hamilton (39:54.048)
Yeah, it's discouraging because they say things that just infuriate me. I feel like, you not talked to a lawyer maybe? because, what is the name of the guy? But anyway, whoever it is, he's saying like, well, because they've backed off. They said they were going to do it. Then a whole bunch of the usual gangs said, it's not going to work. It's going to be harmful. It's a violation of on all that. And then he backed off.

Chuck/Chris (40:01.65)
Ha

Lisa (40:06.338)
Hahaha!

Angie Hamilton (40:23.95)
But before he backed off, managed to get out there. Well, you know, in order to deal with getting around people's charters rights, we're gonna use the notwithstanding clause. And I'm sitting there going like, my God, like talk to us, right? Like it is, if you do this right, it is upholding someone's right to life and security of the person. If you do it wrong and you need the notwithstanding clause, you're doing it wrong.

Chuck/Chris (40:32.85)
Jesus. Jesus. you didn't say that.

Chuck/Chris (40:39.706)
in order to get around.

Chuck/Chris (40:50.236)
Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (40:54.37)
you know, and you're not gonna get anywhere. So there's so much a lack of understanding at the political level. And even like, I do understand why people are fed up with politicians and NBC, this flip of the NDP and everything because well, family caregivers, okay, have been advocating for the right to intervene for decades, okay, long before the overdose crisis.

Chuck/Chris (40:54.876)
Right.

Angie Hamilton (41:22.208)
And with respect to alcohol, let's be real. It's not, your body doesn't know the difference whether it's like, you know, a legal or a illegal drug is just gonna respond. And if you're, if you can't stop, you're gonna have problems, whether it's legal or illegal, right? So we've been advocating for this for decades, family caregivers. And why is there movement now? Why all of a sudden are we talking about it now?

because the general public, as opposed to family caregivers who cares about them, the general public is tired of stepping over our people on the street and they're tired of encampments, they're tired of not feeling safe, they're tired of their downtown's closing, all of those completely legitimate concerns.

So once the safety of the individual isn't the only thing that matters or the safety of their family, because I would argue primarily that's where the harms are when somebody is out of control, is first them, they're the ones first at risk of death, then their families and friends are extreme risk of harm as well. And finally, if it's really bad, it could extend to the general public. And now because we've ignored, you know,

stepping in to help people who are just gonna kill themselves, or just gonna hurt their family. Now that we haven't dealt with that so long that the general public is afraid, now the government has to do something because they're going to lose an election. They're gonna lose votes. People have had it. And so this is a good thing for family caregivers who have been advocating for it forever.

Lisa (42:54.608)
Mm -hmm.

Angie Hamilton (43:09.208)
but it is very disconcerting because I don't feel like it's being done for the right reason. I think they think they've been backed into a corner and I worry they'll just try to warehouse people where they won't be seen and it won't be done in the most effective, compassionate, evidence -based way.

Lisa (43:34.402)
You know, Angie, I was driving yesterday and drove through a part of Calgary where there were a number of intoxicated people sitting on the side of the road, walking down the street, talk, like responding to internal stimuli, clearly hearing voices, talking back to the voices. You know, you could tell by body movements that they were

they were high on drugs. And I was stopped at a stoplight, you know, and I literally had this moment where I looked around at, you know, me and all these people driving their cars through this. Not even looking at it, not looking at it, not seeing it, not caring about it. And I just thought to myself, 100 years from now, are we going to look back and go, what were you people doing? Like you thought

Angie Hamilton (44:20.044)
it, not seeing it, not caring about it. And I just thought to myself a hundred

Angie Hamilton (44:31.436)
I hope so.

Lisa (44:33.1)
this was okay, you think it's okay to see your fellow human in this state on the streets with no housing, probably no money. If you have money, it's gone probably to drugs, but no food like your basic needs not being met with impaired brains, and we just drive past them. It's disgusting. Like it disgusts me.

Angie Hamilton (44:57.92)
Absolutely. Yeah, it is. Yeah.

Lisa (45:01.93)
And then to think that there are people who advocate that, that's their choice. That's their right. Like they don't, they don't even know what, the word right means right now.

Chuck/Chris (45:02.226)
Absolutely.

Chuck/Chris (45:10.575)
Nobody

Angie Hamilton (45:13.956)
They don't know the difference between a right and a wrong, right? Like if we go back to Brianna, okay, 13 years old, there's still people that think safer supply was the solution for her. Okay. And so to me, that's not knowing a right from a wrong. That is not understanding addiction and that it is a thing, whether you want to say it's a disease or an illness, I don't care as long as you're not saying it's being healthy.

Lisa (45:17.441)
No!

Chuck/Chris (45:28.572)
Jesus Christ.

Angie Hamilton (45:42.804)
you know, and so when you got a child who clearly cannot look after themselves and is at huge risk of harm, like life threatening harm, clearly you can't say she wasn't because she's dead. Like if your solution is doing nothing until she's ready to me that when, her ability to make decisions is clearly impaired, that, that is negligence and negligence is a form of child abuse.

And I'm telling you, if I were the parents, I would be suing. And if I didn't have a leg to stand on, I'd sue, you know, I'd sue anyway. I'd sue anyway to send a message because...

If parents don't provide life -saving treatment to a child who is dying from a chronic illness or like a life -threatening illness like cancer or diabetes, right? If I said, I don't think my kid really has diabetes. I don't believe in this insulin stuff. Shots are bad for her. No insulin for my diabetic kid. I'm pretty sure I'd be dealing with child welfare at the door taking my kid.

Chuck/Chris (46:55.154)
Of course you would.

Angie Hamilton (46:55.172)
because that's negligence and I'm not providing what she needs to survive. What other ill, could I just finish one thought? What other illness is there where we take the loving parent that is trying to provide that support and that treatment and say, no, you're wrong. We have to wait for this kid whose ability to make decisions is impaired.

Lisa (47:00.728)
You know, Angie, I remember, yeah.

Angie Hamilton (47:20.43)
to pull herself up by her own bootstraps. And by the way, we're the good guys supporting her rights. you're wrong. That to me is systemic child abuse through a lack of services and intervention.

Chuck/Chris (47:32.594)
It's insane. It's absolutely insane.

Lisa (47:38.022)
I remember when I was a resident and I was at the Children's Hospital doing an internal medicine pediatric rotation there and we had a preteen who was Jehovah's Witness who had a hematologic like a blood disorder and she needed a blood transfusion.

She wasn't asked if she wanted a blood transfusion.

She wasn't, her view on that was not weighed in.

Her parents did not want her to have a blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs. At about two or three o 'clock in the morning, the doctor I was working with went to a judge and said, if we do not transfuse this child, they are going to die. The judge granted us the right to administer a blood transfusion in the middle of the night to save that child.

So again, this was a preteen whose views on it were not even regarded. The parents expressed what they wanted done. And when a doctor felt that that was unsafe, they sought means to bypass those parents in the middle of the night to intervene.

Angie Hamilton (48:58.542)
Right. They protected the child, they acted in the best interest of the child, like the UN Convention rights of the child says we need to do. They ensured that she got the medical treatment that she needed to survive. They protected her from herself and from her parents. Well, not from herself, she was too young, but they protected her from her parents. But we're doing the exact opposite with substance use disorder. We are protecting the

Chuck/Chris (49:09.988)
life saving.

Chuck/Chris (49:22.031)
Absolutely.

Chuck/Chris (49:25.65)
course we are.

Angie Hamilton (49:27.946)
illness from the parents trying to intervene and save their child.

Chuck/Chris (49:33.586)
And somehow that's viewed as the people who are in favor of, you're somehow stigmatizing these people. I try to wrap my head around. the people on the side of absolutely no mandated treatment are essentially stigmatizing addiction by saying addiction, you know, it doesn't apply. All these protocols we have in place in the healthcare system don't apply to addiction.

Aren't you stigmatizing addiction by saying that? Like very much so? And at the same time, saying that because we want to mandate people into treatment who desperately need this care, that we are the ones, it's wild.

Angie Hamilton (50:08.256)
Well, yeah, I mean...

Angie Hamilton (50:15.512)
Yeah, they say mandated, they absolutely argue mandated treatment is stigmatizing. It just like they say violating their, their, okay, the way I've heard it expressed the best by a mom who, who has another group in, in Newfoundland is that we prioritize, in her case, the privacy laws and their right to privacy over their life.

Chuck/Chris (50:20.248)
Yep.

Angie Hamilton (50:41.578)
And this is trying to prioritize some crazy idea of what their right is. Like they think they're prioritizing, they say, we're prioritizing their right and security of the person. Well, she's dead. How'd that work for you? Like you're not, you're not. She wouldn't be dead if that was the priority. If we were acting in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

we would have intervened and not allowed her to be homeless in an encampment or on her own in a tent, dying from drugs that under Article 33 were supposed to protect her from.

You know, that's why I say they don't know a right from a wrong. Like that's confusing rights with child abuse.

Chuck/Chris (51:31.793)
crazy.

Lisa (51:34.73)
I know. It almost sort of like just, it's like, do you, like, what do you say? Like, where do you even, like, you know, similar, like I said, to me driving through and looking at these people around me and realizing that there are people out there in the world who are arguing that we should leave these people here, that we should leave these unwell people to sit here and suffer and rot. That's what I feel like they're saying. And it's just like, it's so,

Chuck/Chris (51:36.955)
Lisa.

Lisa (52:03.572)
absurd to me that sometimes I feel like it stumps me to even knowing what to say. Like it's so ridiculous that it's like how do I engage in this absurd conversation?

Chuck/Chris (52:18.816)
I don't know that you can sometimes, right? You're being villainized for wanting to help people. How do you, right? And it happens all the time. It happens to me twice, three, four, five times a week in social media, right? Most certainly, so.

Angie Hamilton (52:23.372)
Yes, absolutely.

Angie Hamilton (52:31.428)
I think they truly believe if we had compassionate evidence -based treatment on demand and we regulated all substances, everybody'd be fine. And on some level they go, no, no, we know that isn't the case. know everybody, but you aren't doing anything for those people who lack control and will lack control even when there's treatment on demand.

And even when if we regulated all substances, I mean, look at how many people are dying from alcohol, right? And if you say to them, what about the people of alcohol? mean, we've got excellent harm reduction with respect to alcohol, we regulate it, you're not gonna get arrested for drinking it. So excellent harm reduction for alcohol, that's not keeping people alive. Now they're not dying because they're

Chuck/Chris (53:21.074)
Certainly not.

Angie Hamilton (53:24.598)
alcohol has fentanyl in it, you know, I do get that argument. But there just seems to be this belief if we let's deal with bigger problems that are easier to fix, like regulating substances and providing treatment on demand first. But I have to tell you, I don't believe them in the least if we had both of those things, if we regulated all substances, and we had

compassionate evidence -based treatment on demand. I do think there'd be way less people needing involuntary treatment, way less. If we could intervene when they're ready and they want it, we wouldn't need this anywhere near as much. That said, but yes, but there will always be some who, because they lack control and lack insight, right?

Chuck/Chris (54:07.81)
So many people would progress that far for all sorts of different reasons, right?

Angie Hamilton (54:21.572)
aren't serious risk of harm to themselves or others are lack capacity to look after themselves. And the question is, again, this whole issue is what do do about those people? And they do not offer a solution. They keep offering prevention, offer voluntary treatment, they offer harm reduction, and they often offer regulation. And that isn't protecting the people dying from alcohol, none of that. Like prevention doesn't work if you've already got the problem. know, treatment doesn't work if it has to be voluntary and you don't.

Harm reduction, it needs to be said. Harm reduction sometimes saves some people. I support it, we need it. But don't tell me there aren't the same people who lack capacity and willingness to access treatment, lack willingness and capacity to access harm reduction. Like they're the same group. That there are a lot of people who...

are not able to look after themselves, whether it's treatment or harm reduction, not happening. because there are a lot of people just don't want to go to a supervised consumption site. First of all, most of the kids inhale, so there's nothing for them. But if you put it down the street for most of them, they want to use at home alone. They don't want to go there. So how are you reaching them?

Chuck/Chris (55:41.978)
And then, where do those metrics come from, It was mentioned in the one article on LinkedIn there, but how are those statistics collected about the effectiveness of those plates? And I'm not saying that we should not have supervised consumption sites, make that very clear. But I don't know from many years in active addiction, I don't know anybody, or I didn't know anybody until I found Recovery and I met George, I always forget his name, Lisa, you know, I'm talking about fellow from Winnipeg, the father.

Angie Hamilton (55:52.846)
Well, they're... right.

Chuck/Chris (56:11.666)
whose son, 30 -year -old Harland, died.

Lisa (56:13.704)
No, it's not George. It starts with a J.

Chuck/Chris (56:16.05)
I know, Jay, anyway, it'll come to you. Until him, I had never spoken to anybody who had used a supervised consumption site, ever. So are the people that go there being counted as the same person over and over again? And I know they have ways of collecting data, but I've never used the same code name twice when I went to pick up supplies. So I was 10 different people on the 10 different trips I made, right?

Angie Hamilton (56:35.171)
Well...

Angie Hamilton (56:43.95)
You know, what they do is they say that they have reversed this many overdoses and that nobody's ever died. I think one person now has died at a site once. you know, they've got really good stats that if people use there, they're not gonna die, you know, which is great. That said, it does nothing for people whose loved ones will never go there no matter what. And there are lots of those people, right? It does nothing for people drinking themselves to death.

Lisa (56:44.717)
No.

Chuck/Chris (57:09.074)
Yes.

Angie Hamilton (57:13.412)
And also though, with, you know, so people who have been revived at supervised consumption sites, they say, this saved my life. I want to say, unless they always used a supervised consumption site every time they used, which I guarantee you they didn't because they're kind of nine to five type places. It's also fate.

and good fortune and luck that they're alive, right? Like if you use it every time it's open, like, nobody is going, like fentanyl something people are using upwards of 10 more times a day, because it's so short acting. So are they gonna live there? You know, they have to use every two or three hours. Are they living there? Are you open all the time? Because like to me as a parent,

Chuck/Chris (57:45.624)
Ooh.

Angie Hamilton (58:10.606)
Don't offer me something that isn't like going to be there the whole time. Like if this is your solution, it needs to be available all the time and people need to access it all the time to really see it. So if you go all the time and then you die in the middle of the night, cause you're not there, did supervised consumption sites save your life? Did they? They might've revived you six times, but they weren't there to revive you the seventh cause you used in the middle of the night. So,

Chuck/Chris (58:37.668)
So, yeah.

Angie Hamilton (58:39.588)
And these are the conversations we're absolutely not having. And they say these are the most marginalized. And that may be true in the sense that I think it tends to be homeless people and people in shelters that are using these facilities. But we know in BC, like 70 % of the people dying are dying under a roof. They're not. And so for those people, they could call NORS. They could call the National Overdose Responsive. They're not calling. And I could tell you lots of like,

in peer support to family members, they will tell you their loved ones, many of them are not accessing any harm reduction services at all. Right? Most of them are smoking. there is no, there's like nothing. But again, even if they had them, like our loved ones say, I would never go there. It's not me providing the stigma, trust me on this. I'd never go. They do not want to go. They want to use a loan at home. I'm going back to that.

Chuck/Chris (59:19.079)
Chris.

Chuck/Chris (59:23.024)
Yeah. Yeah.

Lisa (59:38.136)
Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (59:38.382)
Where do people drink? They wanna drink, people with alcohol problems, don't go to the bar. Like, I mean, they do go to the bar, but they often, then they go home and they drink until they fall asleep and then they drink as soon as they wake up in the morning. They wanna drink at home. And I don't think it's any different for other substances.

Chuck/Chris (59:51.794)
Absolutely.

Lisa (59:57.517)
And there's also not enough conversation about, you know, something that you that you just said now, and I hear this come up a lot when in mandated treatment conversations is that it's going to further affect people who are, you know, already being marginalized because they're homeless and they're unemployed. And but what about the conversation that a lot of these people are homeless and unemployed?

Chuck/Chris (59:57.626)
It's not, it's not.

Lisa (01:00:24.832)
as a consequence of the illness that you don't want us to treat. Like if we could provide holistic care to these individuals, then a lot of these individuals are incredibly intelligent and resilient and capable. So if we were to treat them, they wouldn't fall into this category of people that these people claim they need to protect. well, they're stigmatized and they're marginalized and

Angie Hamilton (01:00:27.172)
Of course. Yeah.

Lisa (01:00:53.866)
and now we're going to marginalize them even more. it's like, but so you're going to protect the consequences of their disease.

Angie Hamilton (01:01:01.93)
Yeah. Yeah. And let's say

Chuck/Chris (01:01:02.674)
without treating the disease. And could you pass your microphone over to Lisa there? She needs to drop it, because that was pretty great, right? who knows? If I feel adventurous, I'll work it into the script here and I'll put one there. Yeah, I'll send it across. Listen, ladies, we are at the top of the hour. So we could do this for another hour. We could do this for another three hours. And we will, we have lots of time. So as long as the partnership lasts. So I just, look at that, I just locked you in for.

Lisa (01:01:08.574)
Angie Hamilton (01:01:12.789)
Lisa (01:01:15.436)
Hahaha!

Lisa (01:01:32.509)
Yeah.

Chuck/Chris (01:01:32.562)
for lots there, from Canada. No, no, Ange, do you have anything you'd like to say as an outgoing message about this episode and your thoughts around it?

Angie Hamilton (01:01:32.856)
Hahaha!

Angie Hamilton (01:01:42.252)
just hope you know I'm thinking we should try to have someone who disagrees with involuntary treatment come if they're willing you know because the silos continue you know

Chuck/Chris (01:01:52.86)
Who? Yeah. Absolutely, there's a nuance there though. It's hard to find two people and you're one of the people, one of the very, very few people who's capable of having this conversation without getting emotional about it. So in the past, we've done one episode, it went better than I thought it would, but it's hard to find two people on opposite sides of this discussion where emotion doesn't come into play. And I think,

By default, I see that's my own bias coming through, but by default, if you're on the side of absolutely no harm reduction, no, sorry, of no mandated treatment, that's an emotional argument, right? I think, it's not a logical argument, it's an emotional argument, right? Is that my bias saying that? Maybe, but I said what I said.

Angie Hamilton (01:02:36.62)
Yeah, it's it's yes, I understand what you're Yeah. Yeah.

Lisa (01:02:46.968)
Mm

Chuck/Chris (01:02:47.248)
So it's hard to find somebody else to come on and counter. And I'm more than willing to do it. If you have the person in mind, let's do it. And we can look for that person, but it's tough. It's hard to find that without the episode turning into a shit show and it looking like a CNN or a Fox News style. You know what I mean, right? Like it's just, yeah, it's hard. Yeah, yeah, right. know, yeah.

Angie Hamilton (01:02:58.23)
It's tough to do. Yeah, no, it's fair. It is.

Lisa (01:03:03.192)
Jerry Springer.

Angie Hamilton (01:03:05.6)
Is it? Yeah, no, we don't want that. But I'm just throwing it out there because it did hit me. Like it's comfortable here because I feel safe. I feel safe. I do not feel safe out there a lot of the time. And there's silos.

Chuck/Chris (01:03:23.395)
Well, look, there's sound bites you have made in this episode that I will not produce as a reel because I don't want them to be narrowed down and taken out of context, right? So there's stuff that I will that you're gonna say, no, don't do that, Chris. I know you're going to, right? So like, I'll run and pass you first. But because we are so worried about being attacked and it shouldn't be that way, but it is, right? It is, it just is. So, you know.

Angie Hamilton (01:03:28.836)
Yeah. All right, yeah.

Lisa (01:03:49.142)
And the ridiculous thing about it is that what all three of us want is to help people who have impaired brains have access to treatment that they may not realize they need or they may tell us they don't want, but that

Angie Hamilton (01:04:05.42)
you

Lisa (01:04:12.752)
We have the ability as objective outsiders who know something about what's going on in their brains to recognize that they need. Like we literally just want people who are sick to have access to treatment and get better. That's it. And I think we are believers that that can be done in an ethical, compassionate fashion.

Chuck/Chris (01:04:29.298)
Right.

Angie Hamilton (01:04:37.282)
Right spaced.

Chuck/Chris (01:04:39.922)
Right, right spaced.

Lisa (01:04:41.536)
you know, yeah.

Angie Hamilton (01:04:41.88)
Absolutely.

Chuck/Chris (01:04:43.538)
Absolutely. With that, I know we could keep going on, but look at that. It's been five minutes since I said top of the hour. So why don't we move into my favorite part of show, that is the Daily Gratitudes. And Daily Gratitudes are brought to you today by, well, FAR Canada. That's Families for Addiction Recovery. of course, the co -founder of offering free services to families of loved ones.

Angie Hamilton (01:04:50.638)
He

Angie Hamilton (01:05:05.828)
Co -founder,

Chuck/Chris (01:05:11.964)
People with loved ones who suffer with SUD, they offer, see if I get this right without a retake, four monthly meetings, group meetings for families who are in similar circumstances. offer peer -to -peer support systems. It's absolutely amazing. Match you up with a peer that kind of suits you in your circumstances after some training, of course. And of course, if you need some real -time help, you can talk to Sydney, who's one of my favorite human beings.

During the day, you call during their business hours, Lordmore at farcanada .org. How'd I do today? How'd I do? Good stuff, good stuff. I got some ahms and ahs in there, but I can make that go away, so. So what are you grateful for today, Angela?

Angie Hamilton (01:05:43.512)
Very good. Yeah.

Lisa (01:05:45.4)
There's another mic drop moment. Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (01:05:48.706)
Yeah.

Angie Hamilton (01:05:55.36)
am grateful that you did your own little video story of recovery for us to share on our platforms and that you got some other people to help us too. I don't think people realize how hard it is to get people who are willing to share their journey to recovery out loud, recover out loud is what I call it.

Chuck/Chris (01:06:16.466)
Do you know what the challenge is, Ansh? Getting somebody to do it on video for less than 90 seconds to make it real length. That's the challenge. so I've got Mike. Now, Mike, I'm calling you out from Yachter because you said you would. Now I've called you out on the show. So he's gonna do it as well. He's another Canadian, so I've got him coming. Yeah, yeah, but he's like, 90 seconds? It's like, hey, it's tough. Yeah, yeah. Absolutely, right? Yeah, yeah.

Angie Hamilton (01:06:21.409)
really? Well, I've just found it.

Angie Hamilton (01:06:29.04)
okay, great. great, yeah.

Lisa (01:06:36.493)
Yeah

Angie Hamilton (01:06:36.516)
People don't watch longer than that. They want hope, but they want hope in 90 seconds. It's kind of sad, but there it is. Yeah. Yeah. So thank you. Thank you for your help because they're really hard to get. They're very hard to get.

Chuck/Chris (01:06:46.162)
Yeah.

Chuck/Chris (01:06:51.804)
Yeah, they are. Yeah, they are. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're more than welcome. Lisa, what are you grateful for today?

Lisa (01:06:58.953)
So for me, actually, I sitting here thinking about this as, you know, as I knew gratitudes were coming close and I think I'm gonna.

share the gratitude that I feel for the privileged position that I hold as a physician in a hospital that I get to do right by people that cross my path and help them. I have been a hopeless family member. I have been

a hopeless member of society. I have been a medical student and a resident who didn't get to make decisions. And now I have a very privileged position where I get to cross paths with people. And while, you know, we can sit here and share our frustrations with politicians, you know, and their decisions and society and its views and the overall healthcare system. And so that

Angie Hamilton (01:08:02.008)
their decisions in society.

Angie Hamilton (01:08:08.194)
And so that does limit my ability to do things on

Lisa (01:08:08.94)
does limit my ability to do things on broad strokes. But I have so many one -off stories of people who have been my patients, who I have had the privilege of getting to change their story and their family's stories. And it's like, that is just the biggest gift to me. And so I'm like, I'm lucky.

Angie Hamilton (01:08:20.42)
My patients.

Lisa (01:08:38.262)
I get to do that for some people, you know, I wish I could do it for more people, but I get to do it for some people. And I feel very lucky for that.

Angie Hamilton (01:08:38.38)
I get to do that for some reason. I wish I could do it for more people, but I get to do it for

Chuck/Chris (01:08:50.844)
That's a wonderful gratitude, it really is. yeah. See, you start tearing up and then I got to tear up and then starts tearing up. Where does it stop? I'm grateful for a couple things today. First and foremost, and it's been a while, at least my gratitude's gonna go to you, my first one.

Lisa (01:08:59.266)
Hahaha!

Chuck/Chris (01:09:14.968)
as I'm in the social media, like on LinkedIn, arguing, like, I'm gonna tell Lisa, right? so, true story though, right? So, but I know like that my opinions as they are least formed from some sort of knowledge, you know, and most, a lot of that comes from you, right? And so I'd like to say that I have an informed opinion, whereas a year and a half ago I wouldn't have not, at least to the degree that I have now. And so, and week over week, you've got this crazy busy life.

Lisa (01:09:19.009)
Ha!

Chuck/Chris (01:09:44.3)
no, I just thought about your upcoming possible trip. But even then, I somehow feel like you're probably going to show up on the podcast, at least for part of that, right? So because you're you, right? And it's not lost on me how privileged I am to have your time. And I really do appreciate it very much. Appreciate everything about that. Right. So I'm also very appreciative to Valerie. Valerie, thank you very much for that little surprise. It's a donation that showed up in my account yesterday. So those are always nice.

Lisa (01:09:47.593)
Hahaha!

Chuck/Chris (01:10:14.914)
And of course, I am very grateful to every single person who continues to like, comment, share, talk about, do all the things, hit all the buttons down at the bottom. Every time you do these things, you're keeping me living my best life. My best life is to make a humble living, spreading the message. And the message is this. If you're an active addiction right now, today could be the day. Today could be the day that you start a lifelong journey. Reach out to a friend, reach out to a family member, call in to detox, go to a meeting, pray, go to church. I don't care. Do whatever it is you gotta do to get that journey started. It is so much better than the alternative.

If you have a loved one who's suffering addiction right now, you're just taking the time to listen to this episode. You just take one more minute out of your day and text that person. Let them know they are loved. Use the words.

Angie Hamilton (01:10:52.12)
You are love.

Lisa (01:10:52.672)
You are love.

Chuck/Chris (01:10:55.654)
That little glimmer of hope just might be the thing that brings it back. Boom. Good app.

far

278 - PROTECTING CHILDREN WITH SUD FROM THEMSELVES

251 SYDNEY GRAHAM from FAR