Occupy Vancouver in shock after suspected overdose death
A candle-light vigil -- with signs reading "We are all Ashley" -- was held in front of the art gallery, as Occupy Vancouver protestors mourn the death of a woman in her 20s who died of a suspected drug overdose Saturday at the camp. The BC Coroner service confirmed the woman's identity on Sunday as 23-year-old Ashlie Gough, from Victoria.
Only days after protest medics saved the life of an overdose victim on Thursday, counsellors from Insite supervised injection site arrived to discuss preventing similar situations in the future. But protestors defended their camp, saying the death is symptomatic of everyday societal problems.
"I have directed the city manager to expedite the appropriate steps to end the encampment as soon as possible with a safe resolution being absolutely critical to that," Mayor Gregor Robertson said.
On-site protest medics found the Gough at 4 p.m. in her tent. Attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were unsuccessful, and paramedics arrived 10 minutes later, camp medics said.
"I wish we'd gotten there earlier," said Chris Shaw, an Occupy Vancouver medic who was the first-responder today, who said he believes the death was caused by a drug overdose. "We were there in 10 seconds -- literally 10 seconds."
The suspected overdose -- identified as such by several witnesses but not yet confirmed by authorities -- comes only days after a near-fatal heroin overdose at the camp on Thursday, in which protest medics managed to save the man's life with CPR. But Shaw, a certified first aid provider trained in the military, said that the incident could have happened anywhere in the city -- where first-responders would not be so fast.
"Was it wrong for us to feed people and house them?" he asked, hugging a friend after a tense evening at the camp, where police have cordoned off an area of the tent city and Mayor Robertson heeding calls to close down the camp. "There were 120 overdose (deaths) in the city last year."
"Here, we have medics on site at all times. What happened here could have happened anywhere. We did save someone last week."
Lauren Gill, a professional drug and alcohol counsellor staying at Occupy Vancouver, said that the incident is a tragedy that should not be made into an excuse to close down the three-week old protest camp.
"Now our movement needs healing and to give people time to grieve," Gill said. "Our thoughts are with Ashlie and her family. But we saved a man's life last week."
Gill described the 20-something woman as "a bright, energetic, beautiful, kind, passionate, artistic youth" whom she has known for several years.
Another camper said the incident is reflective of Vancouver's drug addiction crisis, not Occupy Vancouver, a protest against the very economic and political system that creates the conditions for drug addictions.
"This is tragic," said Danielle Lee Williams in front of a line of police tape and firetrucks at the art gallery. "This is a member of our community we have just lost."
"I would stress that five to seven people overdose every day in Vancouver -- where people are alone. It affects us daily. But here on site we have community all the time for support."
In the face of the loss -- and mounting calls on Twitter and in the media to shut the camp down as a safety hazard -- Mayor Gregor Robertson announced he would seek an immediate peaceful end to the camp. However, Williams said the death reinforces protestors' resolve to stay.
"We need to keep working and building so that this doesn't happen again if possible," she said. "If they shut it down right now, it's not going to prevent this from happening."
"I don't want to politicize this -- this is a loss, not a problem with the Occupy movement," she added. "But we need to address systemic change for members of our community. It's reinforced the need to stay here today."
The victim was taken away by ambulance at 4:40 p.m. Two hours later, renowned punk band D.O.A. (which, coincidentally, stands for "dead on arrival") was scheduled to play at the tent city. After some discussion of whether the concert should happen, the camp decided to continue. D.O.A. played a cover of Guns'n'Roses' song "Sweet Child of Mine," the video for which depicts a child who dies of a heroin overdose. The mood in the camp was sombre, with some participants debating next steps and others simply listening in silence. A memorial was set up near the camp, with vigilers lighting a line of candles along the sidewalk off Georgia Street and singing songs.
Meanwhile, an emergency meeting of core Occupy Vancouver volunteers discussed responses to the death. There are calls within the camp to invite Insite safe injection nurses to the camp, however reportedly a staffperson at the organization said it would need an exemption from the police to do their work, a camp volunteer said on condition of anonymity.
"This is why we need Insite in society," said Gill, who works in a mobile drug counseling van.
Shaw agrees, admitting that changes are urgently needed at the protest camp, despite the fact that such incidents happen in Vancouver regularly.
"She would have died in an alley and no one would have even tried to save her," he said. "We are going to learn from this and do better." He would like to give camp medics more roles in monitoring the health of campers within the tent city to anticipate problems, but that decision would rest with the larger group.
Other campers agreed, and said if the city attempts to shut down the protest, they will defy orders to leave.
"This is a better, safer shelter than any other shelter in the city," said Occupy participant Blaine Komatic. "That's why people are here -- shelter, education, free food. Nothing that happened here is a product of this movement."
More in News
Related Content on the Vancouver Observer
(14) Comments
Wow. Only in her twenties...that's so sad...but I feel really conflicted. She wasn't killed by the police or by violence, but a drug overdose. Did no one notice she was doing some dangerous drugs? Why is there such a calm acceptance of drugs in Vancouver? I hate it when people give that "self-medication" or "freedom to do what you want" argument. Drugs kill you.
Wow. Only in her twenties...that's so sad...but I feel really conflicted. She wasn't killed by the police or by violence, but a drug overdose. Did no one notice she was doing some dangerous drugs? Why is there such a calm acceptance of drugs in Vancouver? I hate it when people give that "self-medication" or "freedom to do what you want" argument. Drugs kill you.
No one is arguing that it's cool to do heroin. People in the Downtown Eastside are aware that drugs kill family, friends, young and old. It happens often.
There is a problem there, it is poverty and neglect by city and council. Drug addiction is a symptom. Death and violence in our community is too often.
Poverty kills.
Don't blame poverty and neglect by city and council. If they can choose to do drugs, they can choose not to do drugs. Can you afford drugs when you are in poverty? It is the too much freedom, individualism idealogy and acceptance of such behaviors by the society that kill.
Drug abuse isn't restricted to the poor, or the dumb. It is NEVER too much freedom that's the problem. Regardless of the ability of a substance to harm me, I alone control whether it goes in my body. When you make laws restricting the use of things without bothering with educating the users, you have a recipe for this. If this woman had been supervised by the Insite team, she wouldn't be dead now, no question about it.
In the decade since all personal use of drugs in Portugal was decriminalized, overdose deaths and reports of HIV have went down dramatically. We need more supervised injection sites.
This is unfortunate....and more so if it is used to shut down the encampment. In a small community you always have a microcosm of the whole. The difference is that in a small community the one who dies of a drug overdose is someone you know, not a nameless person on the street. My prayers and support for this grieving process and keeping the encampment grounded and vital.
This is a terribly situation.
...And if you lose your tents it doesn't need to stop the progress that you've made. Remove the tents, and come right back to where you left from!
What is being built intellectually is more important than the ability to sleep over night on those grounds.
Don't blame poverty and neglect by city and council. If they can choose to do drugs, they can choose not to do drugs. Can you afford drugs when you are in poverty? It is the too much freedom, individualism idealogy and acceptance of such behaviors by the society that kill.
There is a certain naivity evidenced in believing that people 'choose' poverty, disease and potential death, all which are direct effects of addiction.
A big difference exists between casual/recreational drug use and addiction, and one of those differences involves the level of 'choice'. In active addiction the only choice that appears rational is to maintain life by the use of more drugs. The addiction itself drives the decision-making processes. This doesn't make the addict any less accountable for the position in which they find themselves, but it most certainly helps the rest of us understand what the motivations are in their lives.
It is also presumptive to suggest that individualism, 'freedom' and societal tolerance have anything to do with addiction. It is quite evident to me that the marginalization of chronic addicts within this society points to intolerance. It's the individualism within the society that the drug addict is not a part of that drives this intolerance, furthers the isolation felt by the addict that only serves to push the addict closer to their addictions. Addiction exists in collectivist societies in the same way as it exists in individualist societies. We cannot point to idealism as a 'cause'...and there is no silver bullet cure. Our short-coming as a society is granting access and support to addicts in terms of rehabilitation and re-integration, as well as proper education of youth to stem addictive cycles and predispositions.
If there was any doubt about whether poverty kills or not, we need look no further than seriously impoverished collectivist societies like Africa, East Asia and even here in Canada and the US to witness children starving to death as a direct result of poverty.
It's obvious that drug abuse exists among rich and poor. What I am saying, though, is that rich people can afford to do drugs and poor people really, REALLY can't. If you don't make more than $50,000 in Vancouver, you can't afford to do drugs. I will say though that drugs do more to wreck the reputation of Vancouver's poor and alienate support than anything else. If you have $1000 to blow on drugs, you should be using that money on rent or good clothes, or $500 on crazy tattoos -- that kind of spending should be for loaded college kids only.
Also, why do recreational drugs when you're at a political protest? I know it happens all the time. Just saying it's like being high for a big game.
It is clear to me that you, Jasper, have had no experience with addiction to drugs. When in the throes of addiction one's only priority is drugs.
The income levels of the people living with addictions is not, as you suggest, in excess of $50k. I'm truly sorry that you feel your reputation as a Vancouverite is being 'sullied' by addiction in your city. The idea that "drugs do more to wreck the reputation of Vancouver's poor and alienate support than anything else" is a great example of how, as I stated in my previous post, we, as a society don't make access to help as readily available as we could.
We, as a society, are only as good as our lowest common denominator - the homeless, often addicted, 'rubbies'.
If, as a social group, we want to raise our 'common value' we have to become willing to raise the lowest common denominator.
In a family setting if we define our 'lowest common denominator' as being a 'problem child' or a child with special needs do we take the hardline stance and say that this child shouldn't benefit from the rest of the family's input into the household, both financially and psychologically? No...we offer that child the care needed to the best of our abilities. This same model is used in what is called 'harm reduction' in addictions treatment - if we offer a free drink or methadone we are cutting the costs associated with the crime and health problems that arise from raising the cost of drugs or alcohol.
Addicts, as much as anyone else, deserve the services we all have in this socialized system.
For one person the health care system covers some or all of the costs of treatment for heart or lung problems as the result of what some people call 'results of poor lifestyle choices', but we have no problem paying for that treatment from the 'tax funds'. For another it's the health issues associated from years of addiction...what's the difference?
As for the questions regarding the nature of addiction and how it comes about there is a lot of good information as a result of some very dedicated people out there (one of whom lives in Vancouver and works in the East End to help the hardest cases - Dr. Gabor Mate). It is suggested that most addictions start with an inability to cope internally with stressors as the result of an unhealthy environment that didn't offer a good example of what coping strategies are - not only in life, but sometimes as early as in utero (this speaks to the effects of cortisol levels being elevated in the amniotic fluid in cases of highly stressed pregnant women). When these people reach an age where they are able to find an external means of 'coping' the physical addictions start to take hold. A lot of these addicts, if not all of them, are seeking the same things we all seek in life: To love and be loved; to be accepted; to be productive; to be given a chance.
Many of us have the opportunity to help someone on a daily basis in so many different ways but we don't because we are, largely, too self-centered in our thinking...too caught up in our egos that are fed by a great social machine that dictates 'how' success should look...
Addiction is a very tough cycle to break, but it is possible with the right care and the right people involved...let's get off our high horses and offer some support to our 'lowest common denominator' and raise the bar on our social scales...it will do wonders for our personal well-being in the long run.
I am very sad to hear of the death of such a young life, no matter the circumstances or the spin on it. Death is death, and from such tragic circumstances we must all mourn.
While I agree with the assertion that drug abuse is not a issue that stems directly from the occupy movement or that they caused it in any way, the article quotes "There are calls within the camp to invite Insite safe injection nurses to the camp". This makes me very angry. In Vancouver, we have access to a landmark resource that has fought tooth and nail to exist. It is a wonderful resource, it is necessary, it is PUBLICLY funded (ie., free to users!), and it is two train stops away from the Occupy site. Please tell me why it is that someone in this apparent bylaw exept utopian society that has sprung up in front of the Art Gallery couldn't have taken it upon themselves to help this person get to Insite -- a mere 10 minute journey up the street. But no, now they demand that the services come to them. If there was ever a reason for the general populace to lose support for the movement, it is comments like this that fuel the fire. This demand smacks of entitlement and laziness, and it seriously makes me wonder if the protesters are even representative of our views at all anymore.
It is clear to me that you, Jasper, have had no experience with addiction to drugs. When in the throes of addiction one's only priority is drugs.
The income levels of the people living with addictions is not, as you suggest, in excess of $50k. I'm truly sorry that you feel your reputation as a Vancouverite is being 'sullied' by addiction in your city. The idea that "drugs do more to wreck the reputation of Vancouver's poor and alienate support than anything else" is a great example of how, as I stated in my previous post, we, as a society don't make access to help as readily available as we could.
Actually, I have. Where do you think I heard about self-medicating and the whole "what I do to my body is my business" attitude? I didn't just pull it out of thin air. But as someone who never got addicted myself I have always felt deeply frustrated watching peoplewith potential justify their addictions and wasting their small savings and life quality. But basically I think we are on the same side here. I know that drugs are all-consuming and addicts need compassion. What I argue is that evidence of the horrific effects of drugs being all around us, why start? Why knowingly pick up the needle, aware that you will be dead and/or like the people you see on the sidewalk? Why?
"There is a problem there, it is poverty and neglect by city and council. Drug addiction is a symptom".
Becoming addicted is a CHOICE. If one never starts, one never becomes addicted. Once addicted, poverty becomes inevitable as all resources to to feed the addiction.
This cannot be blamed on the city or the council. Everyone is not addicted. The city is responsible for road maintenance, sewers, water....these are the services that municipalities are responsible for as everyone uses them.
Drug addicts need only to look in a mirror to find the root of the problem.
First to all the people who say horrible and cruel things regarding this your woman and the people around her: you alone look foolish for showing such calous disregard and ignorance. Know that, and anticipate the shame you'll feel if you ever become decent people.
Second, I recently read that an 18-year old died in a fraternity from a drug overdose. I suppose accroding to the logic of many frat houses should be deemed unsafe and removed.
So a person died from overdosing on heroin in Vancouver, yet this is news because it happened at the occupy protest? Well, that's ridiculous and here's why.
Numbers for overdose rates can vary slightly from source to source, but a safe estimate is that at least over 1 person dies from ODing in Vancouver weekly. The Occupy protest has been there for around a month and just experienced their first death. Not so bad for a place most consider to be a high concentration of drug users...
Maybe the city of Vancouver should be removed instead!
One more point: people often forget that the "druggies" and "troublemakers" were inhabiting these parks long before the protests started.
Yawn, don't care. They can blame poverty and injustice, or whatever the hell else they complain about , but the fact is is that this woman made a choice to not only break the law, but to risk her life. Looks like it came back to bite her in the ass.