By: Allison Q. O’Rourke
Upon first entering law school, I was told that the best avenue for me to unite my post-secondary scientific education and training with my future legal career would be to pursue a specialization in Intellectual Property (IP). This summer, I was able to go beyond a more traditional view of employing my scientific expertise through my work with HIV Legal Network in Toronto. One of the highlights of my internship was the opportunity to work on projects that united my existing passion for access to medicine and healthcare with my newfound legal expertise.
Notably, I wrote several memos on the use of certain types of medication (e.g., synthetic cannabinoids) in the treatment of HIV and how access to healthcare and related policies affect certain marginalized populations, such as incarcerated individuals. Currently, programs and services in Ontario are being, or have already been, reduced or eliminated by the provincial government. These services include provincially funded supervised consumption sites (SCS), the last of which will close in September 2026.[1] Other provincially-funded sites closed earlier this year due to the provincial government ending their funding. Supervised consumption sites focused on harm reduction services; they provided a clean, safe place for people who use drugs to consume substances under medical supervision, thereby lowering the risk of fatal overdose.[2] Notably, SCS provided needle exchange programs, where people who inject drugs can safely dispose of their used needles and obtain sterile ones, which has been proven to lower the transmission of blood-borne diseases, such as HIV, among this population.[3]
The Ontario provincial government will instead be opening “Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) Hubs” in the place of SCS, which focus on transitioning individuals away from using illegal substances through abstinence-focused pathways.[4] Importantly, these hubs will not provide supervised drug consumption, safer drug supply, or needle exchange services.[5] Public health organizations and advocates have warned the government and the public that closing consumption sites without offering active overdose prevention inside the new hubs will increase preventable overdose deaths and strain emergency services.[6]
A feeling I’ve been grappling with throughout my internship is the sense of helplessness that can come with witnessing the consequences of policy decisions as an individual. Governments must inevitably make difficult decisions about the allocation of limited resources, and Ontario has framed its transition away from supervised consumption services as an investment in treatment and recovery. Yet, my work this summer has also demonstrated to me that these choices are rarely experienced as abstract policy decisions. For the individuals whose access to healthcare depends on the availability of particular services, the consequences can be immediate and deeply personal.
This has challenged my understanding of what it means to work at the intersection of law, science, and health. My scientific training taught me to value evidence and to ask what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from it. Law school, meanwhile, has increasingly taught me that evidence alone does not determine policy. Decisions about healthcare are also shaped by politics, public perceptions, and competing ideas about who deserves care and what that care should look like. I have found this realization frustrating, particularly when research points to the potentially life-saving benefits of harm reduction services while those services remain politically contested.
At the same time, this feeling of helplessness has helped me better understand the importance of advocacy organizations such as the HIV Legal Network. One individual may not be able to prevent a government from implementing a particular policy, but legal and policy research can document its consequences, challenge the assumptions underlying it, and ensure that the experiences of marginalized communities are not excluded from public debate. This summer has shown me that my scientific and legal backgrounds need not exist in separate spheres. Rather, both can be tools for asking difficult questions about how evidence is translated into policy, and crucially, about who bears the consequences when it is not.
[1] Rianna Lim, “Ontario to end funding for 7 supervised drug consumption sites, province confirms” CBC Toronto (16 Mar 2026), online: <cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ending-supervised-drug-consumption-funding-9.7130534>
[2] Canadian Public Health Association, “Ontario’s Decision to Defund Supervised Consumption Services Risks Lives and Undermines a Comprehensive Response to the Toxic Drug Crisis” (17 Mar 2026), online: <cpha.ca/ontario-defund-scs>
[3] Government of Canada, “Supervised consumption explained: types of sites and services” (2026-03-09), online: <canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/supervised-consumption-sites/explained.html>
[4] For the Ontario government’s perspective, see Government of Ontario, “Ontario Protecting Communities and Supporting Addiction Recovery with New Treatment Hubs” (August 20, 2024) online: <news.ontario.ca/en/release/1005531/ontario-approves-transition-of-nine-drug-injection-sites-into-treatment-hubs>
[5] Government of Ontario, “Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment Hubs (HART Hubs): Reference Document, January 2025” (2025), online: <ontario.ca/page/homelessness-and-addiction-recovery-treatment-hubs-hart-hubs-reference-document-january-2025>; Government of Ontario, supra note 4.
[6] See, e.g., James Hendry, “Ontario’s New Drug Policy: Impacts on Safe Consumption Sites and Public Health” Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice Blog (January 21, 2025), online: <ciaj-icaj.ca/en/2025/01/21/ontarios-new-drug-policy/>