British Columbia’s response to its deadly overdose epidemic has been nothing short of revolutionary. Programs like MySafe in Downtown Eastside and tablet injectable opioid agonist treatment have introduced prescribed hydromorphone—a regulated opioid—to replace toxic street drugs, aiming to save lives and reduce dependence on an unregulated supply. The aim is promising: replace dangerous street drugs with safer alternatives, reduce the death toll and bring some stability to participants’ lives.
Yet beneath this controlled narrative lies a messier truth. A new British Columbia study has unveiled how participants are repurposing hydromorphone for far more than its intended use, turning to it to manage chronic pain, anxiety, and even sleeplessness. While this adaptation underscores the resilience of people navigating a broken system, it also reveals glaring failures in BC’s approach to harm reduction—highlighting a healthcare system ill-equipped to meet its most basic obligations.
Hydromorphone’s Unintended Journey
When BC introduced hydromorphone as part of its safer supply programs, it was heralded as a bold, lifesaving measure. At its core, the initiative was pragmatic: provide a clean, reliable alternative to contaminated street drugs and mitigate the skyrocketing overdose deaths ravaging the province. Programs like MySafe even employed futuristic solutions, dispensing tablets through biometric machines designed to streamline access while maintaining accountability.
But hydromorphone’s role has evolved beyond its intended function. Participants interviewed in the study described how the medication addressed unmet health needs often ignored by traditional healthcare systems. For some, hydromorphone alleviated withdrawal symptoms, allowing them to maintain daily routines and avoid dangerous behaviours. For others, it offered relief from chronic pain or anxiety, becoming an unintended crutch in lives marked by systemic neglect.
Whether this evolution represents adaptability or a dangerous overextension of the program’s scope is the question. Critics argue that by serving as a catch-all remedy, hydromorphone risks fostering dependency rather than empowering recovery. Others counter that these unintended uses demonstrate the medication’s potential to meet broader needs, filling gaps left by an inaccessible healthcare system.
This trend raises a fundamental question: How did BC’s healthcare system reach a point where a harm-reduction program for opioid addiction is expected to fill gaps in pain management, mental health care, and housing stability? Hydromorphone was designed to keep people alive, not to serve as a panacea for an array of unmet needs.
How BC’s Healthcare Gaps Create Desperation
At the heart of this issue lies a glaring indictment of BC’s healthcare infrastructure. The study paints a vivid picture of participants grappling with structural vulnerabilities—poverty, precarious housing, untreated pain, and mental health challenges. Hydromorphone has become a tool of necessity in a system that too often leaves marginalized people behind.
Consider the case of one participant who used the medication to manage chronic pain after being denied adequate treatment elsewhere. Their story echoes a broader trend: individuals turning to illicit drugs or prescribed opioids for conditions that could be addressed through proper medical care. Others described using hydromorphone to combat anxiety brought on by homelessness or traumatic environments, highlighting the psychological toll of systemic neglect.
This over-reliance on a single solution speaks to a healthcare system struggling to deliver comprehensive care. By focusing on harm reduction without addressing root causes, BC risks entrenching the very cycles it seeks to disrupt. Hydromorphone may keep people alive but doesn’t offer a path toward recovery or dignity. BC has made significant strides in harm reduction, but the repurposing of hydromorphone reveals the fragility of its progress.
When Harm Reduction Becomes Dependency
The repurposing of hydromorphone raises thorny ethical and practical questions. Participants reported needing higher doses to achieve relief, highlighting the potential for new dependencies to emerge. For some, the medication became less a harm-reduction tool and more a coping mechanism for survival—a shift that complicates the program’s original intent. This escalating dependency poses a new challenge, blurring the line between treatment and addiction.
Moreover, critics worry about the long-term implications of such adaptations. Does allowing hydromorphone to serve multiple purposes blur the lines of its intent, undermining public trust in safer supply programs? And what safeguards exist to prevent misuse or unintended harm? This shift in perception could jeopardize the future of harm reduction in BC. While the study shows the ingenuity of participants in navigating systemic failures, it also underscores the fragility of a strategy that relies so heavily on a single intervention.
However, for many advocates, these risks are outweighed by the immediate benefits. Hydromorphone’s adaptability, they argue, reflects its power to address the diverse needs of a vulnerable population. Rather than condemning its repurposing, policymakers should view it as evidence of the program’s potential to evolve into a more holistic care system.
What Safer Supply Can’t Fix
The study’s findings are as much an indictment as they are a call to action. BC’s safer supply programs may be lifesaving, but they are not enough. Without substantial reforms to address the systemic issues driving reliance on hydromorphone, the province risks turning a groundbreaking initiative into a short-term fix.
The solutions lie beyond the prescription pad. Expanding access to mental health services, creating low-barrier pain management programs, and investing in housing stability must become priorities. Hydromorphone should complement, not replace, a broader strategy aimed at tackling the root causes of addiction and marginalization. Programs must also adapt to participants’ varied needs, offering flexibility that supports independence rather than perpetuating dependency.
At its core, this story is about the limits of harm reduction when divorced from systemic reform. BC’s efforts to stabilize lives are commendable, but true progress will require more than keeping people alive—it demands a commitment to helping them thrive. Hydromorphone may be a lifeline, but it cannot carry the weight of an entire system’s failures.
Unpacking the Hydromorphone Impact
The repurposing of hydromorphone by participants in BC’s safer supply programs is not a simple story of misuse—it’s a reflection of necessity. People are turning to the drug to fill voids left by a healthcare system that routinely denies them access to effective pain management, mental health care, and stability. This unintended adaptation speaks to the resilience of those navigating this crisis and the systemic failures that force them into such precarious positions.
While hydromorphone saves lives by offering a safer alternative to toxic street drugs, its unintended uses expose the limitations of relying on a single intervention to address a complex crisis. The medication has become a tool for survival in ways policymakers did not foresee, raising new challenges: escalating dependency, unaddressed underlying conditions, and the ethical implications of stretching harm reduction to cover gaps far beyond addiction care.
Understanding why people are repurposing hydromorphone is key to refining BC’s approach to the overdose epidemic. This is not merely a question of policy tweaks but of tackling the deeper inequities driving the crisis. Without systemic reforms—expanded healthcare access, low-barrier mental health services, and effective pain management—hydromorphone will remain a stopgap for unmet needs, its potential overshadowed by the vulnerabilities it cannot repair. This adaptation should not be dismissed but examined as a signal that the overdose response must evolve to meet the complexity of the crisis it aims to resolve.
Kris has been at the forefront of Downtown Eastside initiatives for over 15 years, working to improve the neighbourhood. As a consultant to several organizations, he played a key role in shaping harm reduction strategies and drug policies. A strong proponent of decisive action, Kris’s work focuses on driving tangible change and advocating for solutions that address the complex challenges facing the community.
Leave a Comment