This article widens the debate surrounding supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) by exploring an aspect of SIFs yet to be examined in the scholarly literature: the relationships created between staff and clients within these settings. By analyzing entries made in the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre's (MSIC) client comment books we explore the centrality of emotional connection to clients' experiences of the service. We argue that the everyday contact between staff and clients—including the “accidental intimacy” that develops when clients inject in the presence of staff —counters the sensations of shame identified by many in the comment books, creating new relations, and new performative possibilities for the production of self, belonging and citizenship for clients of the service. In exploring the role of emotions in the operation of the MSIC we also aim to highlight the political, policy, and clinical value of qualitative forms of inquiry for the harm-reduction field.
AhmedS. (2004). Collective feelings, or the impressions left by others. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(2), 25–42.
2.
AshtonM., & WittonJ. (2004). The power of the welcoming reminder. Drug and Alcohol Findings, 11, 4–18.
3.
BourgoisP. (2002). Anthropology and epidemiology on drugs: The challenges of cross-methodological and theoretical dialogue. International Journal of Drug Policy, 13, 259–269.
4.
DolanK.KimberJ.FryC.FitzgeraldJ.McDonaldD., & TrautmanF. (2000). Drug consumption facilities in Europe and the establishment of supervised injecting centres in Australia. Harm Reduction Digest, 19, 337–346.
5.
FineM. (1992). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
FraserS.MaherJ.M., & WrightJ. (2010). Between bodies and collectivities: Articulating the action of emotion in obesity epidemic discourse. Social Theory & Health, 8, 192–209.
7.
FreemanK.JonesC.G.A.WeatherburnD.J.RutterS.SpoonerC.J., & DonnellyN. (2005). The impact of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) on crime. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24, 173–184.
8.
FryC.L. (2002). Injecting drug user attitudes towards rules for supervised injecting rooms: Implications for uptake. International Journal of Drug Policy, 13, 471–476.
9.
FryC.CvetkovskiS., & CameronJ. (2006). The place of supervised injecting facilities within harm reduction: Evidence, ethics and policy. Addiction, 101, 465–467.
HardingS. (1986). Is there a feminist method? Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology. In KempS. and SquiresJ. (Eds.) Feminisms (pp. 160–70; 188–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
HedrichD. (2004). European report on drug consumption rooms. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
13.
KerrT.MontanerJ., & WoodE. (2008). Supervised injecting facilities: Time for scale up?The Lancet, 372(9636), 354–355.
14.
KerrT.TyndallM.LiK.MontanerJ., & WoodE. (2005). Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. The Lancet, 366, 316–318.
15.
KimberJ.DolanK.van BeekI.HedrichD., & ZurholdH. (2003). Drug consumption facilities: An update since 2000. Drug and Alcohol Review, 22(2), 227–233.
16.
KimberJ.MattickR.KaldorJ.van BeekI.GilmourS., & RanceJ. (2008). Process and predictors of drug treatment referral and referral uptake at the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Drug and Alcohol Review, 28(4), 602–612.
17.
LloydC., & HuntN. (2007). Drug consumption rooms: An overdue extension to harm reduction policy in the UK?International Journal of Drug Policy, 18(1), 5–9.
18.
LordeA. (1983). The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. In MoragaC. and AnzalduaG. (Eds.) This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color (pp. 98–101). New York: Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press.
19.
MaherL. & SalmonL. (2007). Supervised injecting facilities: How much evidence is enough?Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 351–353.
20.
MalowaniecL., & RoweW. S. (2003). Social workers and safer injection rooms: We accept them the way they are. In CsiernikR. & RoweW.S. (Eds.), Responding to the Oppression of Addiction: Canadian Social Work Perspectives (pp. 37–52). Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
21.
MandersonD. (2005). Possessed. Cultural Studies, 19(1), 35–62.
22.
MSIC Evaluation Committee. (2003). Final report on the evaluation of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Sydney: Author.
23.
NCHECR, (2007a). Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre interim evaluation report no. 3: Evaluation of client referral and health issues. Sydney, NSW: National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of New South Wales.
24.
NCHECR, (2007b). Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre evaluation report no. 4: Evaluation of service operation and overdose-related events. Sydney, NSW: National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of New South Wales.
25.
NochlinLinda. (1989). Why have there been no great women artists? In Women, art and power and other essays (pp. 145–78). London: Thames and Hudson.
26.
PetrarS.KerrT.TyndallM. W.ZhangR.MontanerJ. S. G., & WoodE. (2007). Injection drug users' perceptions regarding use of a medically supervised safer injecting facility. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 1088–1093.
27.
RadcliffeP., & StevensA. (2008). Are drug treatment services only for “thieving junkie scumbags”? Drug users and the management of stigmatised identities. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 1065–1073.
RhodesT.SamsonG.MooreD., & BourgoisP. (2010). Qualitative social research in addictions publishing: Creating an enabling journal environment. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(6), 441–444.
30.
SalmonA.TheinH-H.KimberJ.KaldorJ., & MaherL. (2007). Risk, shame and the public injector: A qualitative study of drug injecting in New South Wales. International Journal of Drug Policy, 18(1), 46–53.
31.
SchorrL. (2003). Determining “what works” in social programs and social policies: Toward a more inclusive knowledge base. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
32.
SmithC. B. R. (2010). Socio-spatial stigmatization and the contested space of addiction treatment: Remapping strategies of opposition to the disorder of drugs. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 859–866.
33.
StrathdeeS.A., & PolliniR. (2007). A 21st century Lazarus: The role of safer injecting sites in harm reduction and recovery. Addiction, 102(6), 848–849.
34.
van BeekI. (2003). The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre: A clinical model. Journal of Drug Issues, 11(3), 625–638.
35.
van BeekI. (2004). In the eye of the needle: Diary of a medically supervised injecting centre. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
36.
WatsonJ. (2005). Active engagement: Strategies to increase service participation by vulnerable families. [Discussion Paper]. NSW Centre for Parenting and Research, Department of Community Services, Sydney, NSW.
37.
WisdomJ.HoffmanK.RechbergerE.SeimK., & OwensB. (2009). Women-focused treatment agencies and process improvement: Strategies to increase client engagement. Women & Therapy, 32(1), 69–87.
38.
WoodE.KerrT.SmallW.LiK.MarshD.Montaner (2004). Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 171(7), 731–734.
39.
WoodE.TyndallM.W.CalvinL.MontanerJ.S.G., & KerrT. (2006). Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 1(13), 1–4.
40.
WoodE.TyndallM.W.ZhangR.MontanerJ.S.G., & KerrT. (2007). Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users. Addiction, 102(6), 916–19.
