PART TWO: BC DOCTORS CAN PRESCRIBE FENTANYL TO MINORS NOW WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT
Here is Part One if you missed it.
PART TWO is a jaw dropper for me. It is a continued study of BC and the ever expanding drug enabling the government is doing. HANDING AND PRESCRIBING KIDS DRUGS FOR ONE.
'Safer snorting kits' handed out at B.C. high school after drug presentation
The kit includes straws and wallet-sized cards for cutting powdered drugs into snortable lines — as well as a booklet on 'staying safe when you’re snorting'
Ok. Our governments are becoming the very people we grew up being warned about. Stay away from guys in white vans. They could be perverts and might want to torture your genitals or even remove your sex organs.
There are all kinds of deviants in white vans. Don’t let them offer you candy and don’t believe anything they say.
Do not take drugs. Drugs are not safe.
Our government has become creeps in white vans. Baby killers too.
NEW-Speak Safe is now back and it is extremely ugly.
It is about fentanyl.
RECREATIONAL FENTANYL. That is an oxymoron.
Recreation is like fly fishing. Needle point. learning to bake bread. We’ve replaced home-eck with drug-teck.
Isn’t that just the end of one’s life. Aren’t you pouring it out through the hour glass.
Essentially British Columbia PLANS TO GIVE SAFER SUPPLY FENTANYL TO MINORS. AND PARENTS WON’T HAVE A SAY.
Is it murder. To prescribe children fentanyl. It is state policies that promote slow suicide, slow death, slow decent into madness.
At school my kids were told sugar is good. That they should have sugar some sugar every day in the form of candy or what have you. I thought that is the oddest thing to learn in health class.
No it is not the ODDEST. NOT BY a long shot.
But nevertheless I thought it was nutball. Sugar is addictive, bad for your teeth and there are healthy foods that you could discuss.
I lodge these pieces of dissonance in my mind and wait for them to make sense.
Like curriculum you aren’t supposed to know about because of secrets. or whatever.
now drugs are something parents will not have a say about. They also like to publish ‘studies’ that justify their actions.
“Education and equipment for people who smoke crack cocaine in Canada: progress and limits
Carol Strike 1, Tara Marie Watson 2
Affiliations expand
PMID: 28494810
PMCID: PMC5427547
Free PMC article
Abstract
Background: People who smoke crack cocaine experience a wide variety of health-related issues. However, public health programming designed for this population is limited, particularly in comparison with programming for people who inject drugs. Canadian best practice recommendations encourage needle and syringe programs (NSPs) to provide education about safer crack cocaine smoking practices, distribute safer smoking equipment, and provide options for safer disposal of used equipment.”
The kicker is Parents will not have a say. Ah.
That does seem like the referrals to gender diversity clinics across Canada. The referral sources there are schools, teachers, principals, guidance councillors and the the contact information is the minors not the parents.
The new left thinks this is great. Do your own search to look at forms and decide for yourself if there is a pipeline from schools to clinics (gender diversity add your region and hospital and child). In our small area, there were 33 publicly funded programs for youth to get into a transgender program. Evidently this is because of a need. But it is odd that the wait list for cancer care is excessive in our area as well. It is because there is no need.
So then up to the child to tell the parent despite likely being told. what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
The system seems slightly hostile to parental knowledge. It is assumed that is by design and because the government knows better. It’s for the planet.
All good? I guess some people think its fabulous and great. and ‘ Health Care’.
Well so is fentanyl prescriptions to minors.
BC is presenting Fentanyl as SAFE. SAFER SUPPLY FENTANYL TO MINORS. PRESCRIBED.
I think its not Safe. I think its absurd. And by the article, I think they were trying to slide it through.
The below article is linked above. It was published in the National Post. My thoughts follow further below.
“Adam Zivo: B.C. plans to give 'safer supply' fentanyl to minors. And parents won't have a say
No minimum age listed in protocols for providing youth with taxpayer-funded recreational fentanyl
Published Jan 10, 2024 • Last updated 9 hours ago • 4 minute read
Article content
In what constitutes a clear trampling of parental rights, British Columbia recently authorized the provision of “safer supply” fentanyl to youth across the province, regardless if parents are informed of, or agree to, this measure.
The provincial government has provided limited access to safer supply fentanyl since at least 2020, primarily through small-scale pilot projects.
However, last August the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU), an influential research organization, published protocols permitting doctors and nurses to prescribe “safe” fentanyl tablets to adults and minors.
The organization confirmed to me in an email that it had been contracted by the province to produce these documents “to further support clinicians prescribing safer supply across the province.”
While the B.C. government generally promotes its commitment to safer supply, it was oddly silent in this instance. I became aware of the new protocols only because two concerned addiction physicians contacted me shortly after their publication.
As there has been zero media coverage of this development — excluding a report I authored for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), published last month — the provincial government has been able to ramp up the distribution of “safe” fentanyl with almost no public scrutiny.
This is a shame, as the new protocols are full of red flags, including a jarring near-absence of safeguarding measures when giving fentanyl to minors, to say nothing of the obvious ethical issues around underage consent.
The only special requirements for underage patients is the use of a “two prescriber approval system,” wherein one prescriber conducts the patient intake interview and another reviews the client’s charts before signing off.
A number of addiction experts have criticized this as deeply inadequate. Dr. Leonora Regenstreif, a Hamilton-based addiction physician, said she found it hard to imagine that two doctors or nurses working in the same clinic would significantly challenge each others’ prescribing decisions.
The protocols do not provide a minimum age for when youth can receive recreational fentanyl. When I asked the BCCSU whether a minimum existed, they did not reply.
The documents also make absolutely no mention of the rights and roles of parents of drug-addicted minors.
In an email, I asked the BCCSU: i) why the fentanyl protocols made no reference to parents; ii) what would the organization say to parents who do not want their children to receive “safe” fentanyl; iii) whether the BCCSU believes that drug-addicted youth can provide informed consent regarding “safe” fentanyl; and iv) what can parents do if they believe that their children are being harmed by safer supply fentanyl?
The BCCSU did not respond to these queries, despite generally answering other emails of mine over the past year.
If the province is going to dole out recreational fentanyl to minors, it should probably have strong evidence backing this decision — but apparently it doesn’t.
The protocols clearly state that, “To date, there is no evidence available supporting this intervention, safety data, or established best practices for when and how to provide it.” In fact, “a discussion of the absence of evidence supporting this approach” is actually required for securing informed consent from patients.
It seems that parents will actually be powerless to stop the government from supplying their children with fentanyl, as safer supply technically counts as a health-care intervention and youth have substantial control over their own medical decisions in Canada.
While some provinces set a minimum age (typically between 14 and 16 years old) for when minors can make such decisions, British Columbia has no minimum and relies instead on a fluid idea of “capability” — youth in the province are considered “capable” if they understand what a medical intervention involves, why it is needed and its risks and benefits.
It is true that many drug-addicted youth are in foster care or estranged from their parents, and that, for them, securing parental consent is near-impossible. Yet making an exception for this subpopulation, and permitting them to receive free fentanyl, could incentivize other underage drug users to cut ties with their families and run away from home to secure free drugs.
As parents are often a youth’s greatest asset for recovery, any safer supply system that undermines child-parent relationships is harmful.
In a sad twist, the same laws that allow the government to give recreational fentanyl to kids without parental consent also prohibit parents from sending their children to involuntary addiction treatment — in other words, the government won’t help you force your kid to get clean, but they will give them unlimited “safe” drugs against your will.
As I argued in my MLI report, “By reframing the provision of unlimited recreational fentanyl as medical care, the provincial government may inadvertently turn itself into a parent’s worst nightmare — an unstoppable drug dealer with endless supply and unrestricted access to their child.”
While Health Canada confirmed to me in an email that it did not play a role in the development of these protocols, it did not respond to a follow-up email where I asked if the federal government had any objections to giving recreational fentanyl to minors.”
You’d think our governments were trying to kill our kids. Population Activities are funded by the UN and have been for a long time. Wouldn’t you like to know who if in charge of YOUR COUNTRY’S POPULATION ACTIVITIES. That is generally reducing population. How. Would. You. do. that.
There is no good way to look at parents having no control over their child getting access to fentanyl through a doctor’s prescription.
Benevolent authority. Medicine. Doctors. Where we teach our children to place their trust. Doctors, nurses, the government, teachers?
To place their respect. If you didn’t know, you would never believe.
There is no safe FENTANYL. It is exceptionally addictive and exceptionally lethal.
The Safe Injection site in Toronto on the east side is meters from a school, already littered with needles, violence, drug dealers.
During the pandemic where I was they closed gyms, education, but you could get pot and booze. They closed play grounds, and started the snitch lines for reporting 5 people or more outside together. GR-reat. We are a family of 5. We weren’t all allowed at the same restaurant table and qualified as illegal outside and legal inside.
When you place the SAFE fentanyl alongside the pandemic you also ge the SAFE Vaccine. Nothing burger? or is a ‘decree’. Both are simply decrees. Safe by decree. FENTANYL IS NOT FUCKING SAFE.
She Thought It Was Xanax. She Died of Fentanyl Poisoning. Just One Fake Pill Can Kill
And not safe for my kids. This is like the pandemic not just because of the spurious use of the word SAFE, because unhealthy is protected and promoted.
But you also get the healthy gyms closed. and you get the dispensaries and addictive substances available. So it aligns doesn’t it.
All of these trends align.
The presumption in the article is that the doctors who will be prescribing have the kids interest in mind, ie the child is already addicted to fentanyl, so they NEED a prescription of more and SAFE fentanyl.
Please spare me! We do not fall for the researched articles that justify handing out new crack pipes.
I am beside myself with the level of evil this.
You don’t need a whole lot of whacko activists in schools. There is no way to prevent the drug from being in proximity of kids. The province and trudeau ‘decriminalized’ all hard drugs. And they want to do it to Toronto.
The latest thing I believe ties in with this is the new addition to codes of conduct in schools which say you cannot discriminate against people for reason of having had a criminal conviction. I have been mulling that around.
As it is right now if a parent gets up and speaks about a transgender issue in their school then automatically the push back is that it violates the the anti-bullying policies (if a student) and workplace harassment policies, and the codes of conduct. And is hate. Therefore by implication, any and all manner of transgender teachings, books, curriculum have to be consented to. There is no stepping over the line, because there is no line. there is an infinity to it, because any and all discussion gets slammed down with the same, logic no matter what. Discussion is a microaggression that violates the policy.
In essence therefore it is a mandatory consent, assent protection. Any deviation becomes ‘Hate’. Likewise, by introducing that you cannot discriminate against anyone by virtue of the criminal code conviction you have a kettle of worms.
It alters the idea of Police Check to access or work with children. I guess a police check becomes discriminatory. uhhuh. That is the point
Well let’s see you don’t want a convicted drug dealer or convicted child sex offender volunteering at your child’s school. well speaking about it walks into violations of these exact codes.
Sort of a weaponization of these types of codes. Silence and consent is the only way to comply. Discussion or arriving at a good solution for all involved is not possible. It is a thrust and sword rather than a shield from harm.
But when I mull it about, I think, that is all so absurd. How could these things pass and people not see it for what it is. a form of censorship.
it is black and white exactly what is happening and so is the new prescription of Fentanyl to minors.
When you vote left, you are voting for communities that are barely tolerable to live in. Losing a loved one to drug addiction is so painful. Drugs are prevalent everywhere. They are doing their population activities.
Are we supposed to trust schools and health care and government. And is distrust just dismissed as right wing. ha. have a fling with the right wing. You’ll end up liking us.
The first principle of the state is that it is to provide security to the citizens. That would be to secure the borders. Instead the government seems to be ushering all manners of harm to citizens. Through the written word. The laws. and then following these up with actions. Actions or omissions that cause death, harms, destruction to communities.
Many people need to understand the implications of the get along attitude. Or the thought that the odd things we witnessed during covid. stopped at covid. Get over it. But it is not over, the continuation of those policies are surfacing like an infection throughout the system.
Kids are at risk from adults we believe are protecting them.
If you are thinking of voting left, think of BC. It is Canada’s California. And it seems like from this perspective these policies are actively killing their citizens.
all while keeping them safe.
Great Post LawyerLisa. Great Video too. Uncomfortable topic to discuss and confront but you have done a great job in conveying what’s going on and what’s at stake.
That is how you REPLACE or DEPOPULATE people after you brought them to a state of despair.
But why?
To bring in a new population which will not protest? To decimate population and reduce it to a completely controlled asset?
What do you think?
Also, is this "Chinese fentanyl war" a revenge on the West because of the Opium wars?