calling for an independent investigation: who is accountable for bc's prescribed drug supply?
We need investigative journalists, university researchers, public institutions and people with lived experience to help us uncover the facts.
I recently came across a troubling discussion about Dilaudid (hydromorphone), prescribed safer supply, pharmacy payments and allegations involving more than 60 pharmacies in British Columbia.
The more I read, the more questions I had.
I am not a medical researcher, an investigative journalist or a public-health expert. I am a concerned citizen who believes that public money, pharmaceutical interests and the lives of vulnerable people deserve serious scrutiny.
This story is too big for one person to investigate alone.
are we learning from the oxycontin crisis?
North America has already witnessed the devastating consequences of opioid-related corporate misconduct, inadequate safeguards and failures of accountability.
We cannot assume that the circumstances surrounding Dilaudid are identical to those surrounding OxyContin. But we should be asking hard questions about financial incentives, public spending, prescribing practices, patient safety and the availability of treatment.
In February 2025, the B.C. government announced allegations involving more than 60 pharmacies and changes to its prescribed-alternatives program.
What happened next?
Were the allegations substantiated? Were any pharmacies disciplined or referred for prosecution? How much public money was involved? What independent evaluations have been published?
These are questions that deserve documented answers, not speculation or political talking points.
is there a war on people who use drugs, harm reduction, or both?
We need to look beyond the headlines and examine what is happening to human beings.
If someone depends on prescribed medication and that prescription is discontinued, what happens next?
- Can they access treatment promptly if they want to stop using drugs?
- Are detoxification, opioid agonist treatment, residential rehabilitation and long-term recovery support genuinely available?
- What happens to people who return to the unregulated drug supply?
- Are changes to prescribing policies reducing harm, increasing harm, or producing different outcomes for different groups?
- Are people being treated as individuals who need care, or as numbers in a system of prescriptions and payments?
Preventing diversion matters. So does preventing overdose deaths. Neither objective should be used to dismiss the other.
We need independent research that examines both.
who can help investigate?
I am calling on:
Investigative journalists, including the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), to consider whether the financial arrangements, public payments and allegations warrant deeper investigation.
University researchers, particularly in public health, epidemiology, addiction medicine, pharmacy policy and health economics, to examine the available evidence and identify what remains unknown.
Public accountability institutions, including the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, to consider whether public spending and oversight arrangements merit further examination within their mandates.
Frontline workers and people with lived experience to share documented evidence, research, and experiences that can help explain what is happening beyond official announcements.
We need to hear from pharmacists, prescribers, outreach workers, people receiving prescribed alternatives, people in recovery and families who have lost loved ones.
Their experiences matter. So do reliable data, independent analysis and the presumption that allegations must be investigated fairly before conclusions are drawn.
this is bigger than one medication
The question is not simply whether Dilaudid is good or bad. It is whether our systems of healthcare, addiction treatment and public funding are delivering the outcomes they promise.
Who benefits financially? Who is accountable when safeguards fail? Who measures the consequences when policies change? And who ensures that people are not abandoned when they need help?
We should not have to choose between protecting vulnerable people and demanding financial transparency.
We need both.
If you are a researcher, investigative journalist, healthcare professional, frontline worker or someone with relevant lived experience, please share credible sources, published research and information that could help move this discussion forward.
Please distinguish verified facts from allegations and personal opinions. Protect the privacy of patients and other vulnerable people. We are looking for evidence, not scapegoats.
I may not have the expertise to uncover this story myself, but I can help ask the questions and bring attention to the people who do.
Sometimes the first step toward accountability is refusing to stop asking questions.
Who is willing to help investigate?
— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita
Sources to begin with:
- B.C. government: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2025HLTH0008-000127
- B.C. prescribed-alternatives program: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-professional-resources/pharmacare/pharmacare-substance-use-disorder-hub/pa
- International Consortium of Investigative Journalists: https://www.icij.org/
- B.C. Centre on Substance Use: https://www.bccsu.ca/
- Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia: https://www.oag.bc.ca/
No comments:
Post a Comment