HOW THE FRAMING OF SUPERVISED INJECTION SITES CAN HINDER IMPLEMENTATION

Abstract

This thesis looks at the contradictory discourse surrounding supervised injection sites (SISs) in Canada. I define two major political camps with differing perspectives regarding the efficacy and safety of SISs and a third minor coalition that provides a unique perspective on the matter. These camps are the public order camp, the public health camp, and the governmentality camp. The positions of the three camps are profoundly political and substantiated on distinct moral and evidence-based claims with little discourse between them. I will rely on framing theory to demonstrate my hypothesis that there is little room for discourse between groups because each group depends on different forms of evidence to support its claims. Although this will help highlight the specific barriers limiting the efficacy of SISs, it will also demonstrate some of the limitations of evidence-based medicine in the face of highly polarizing political issues.