Examining the Evidence on Supervised Injecting Facilities
Supervised injecting facilities are frequently described as life-saving harm-reduction measures. The picture that emerges from the data is far more contested.
This collection brings together evidence and peer-reviewed correspondence questioning the claimed benefits of injecting rooms in Sydney, Melbourne, and Vancouver, including a detailed critique of the influential Lancet research on Vancouver’s Insite facility.
Resources
Injecting Rooms
Data, reports, and published correspondence challenging the effectiveness and safety claims made for supervised injecting facilities.
- Damning Results of Sydney and Melbourne Injecting Rooms (opens in a new tab)
- Over-representation of Overdose in the Melbourne Injecting Room (opens in a new tab)
- Early Damning Data on the Sydney Injecting Room (opens in a new tab)
- Falsifying the Reduced Ambulance Callout Claims of the Sydney Injecting Room (opens in a new tab)
- Lancet 2011 Study on Vancouver Shown to be Fraudulent or Inept (opens in a new tab)
- First Letter Published in Lancet January 2012 (opens in a new tab)
- Lancet Author’s Spurious Reply to First Lancet Letter (opens in a new tab)
- Second Letter to Lancet on Study Fraud or Ineptitude (opens in a new tab)
Reading the Evidence Carefully
Policy on injecting facilities should rest on rigorous, independently verified evidence rather than advocacy. The documents gathered here invite a closer look at the data behind the headlines, and at the methods used in the studies most often cited in their favour.