From: Chris Gupta <chrisgupta@alumni.uwaterloo.ca>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/boundgagged01apr04.shtml
April 1, 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Gupta
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:10 PM
Subject: Canada’s Public Health Agency: Bound and gagged?
What a joke! As if this is something new. All public agencies are "bound
and gagged" if and when vested interests are affected in the pocket
book. This is almost the norm and not an exception as this media release
implies. These crumbs of information that the media throw - only serve to
placate the masses. They create an illusion that derelict governmental bodies
are being kept in check leading us to believe that this is good democracy
at work. What one should realize is, that for every crumb of sanity discovered
or thrown out at us is only intended to serve as public relations tactic
while thousands of indiscretions safeguarding business interests go unchecked
....
..."Nothing is more obvious and more urgently needed
than a national body that is independent of politicians and bureaucrats
and dedicated solely to protecting and enhancing the health of the public."
Surely the national governmental bodies need to be independent
of business interests also before even one remotely thinks in moving in
that direction ... Strange that conflict of interest is not even considered
this supposedly scathing review of the Health Agency?
Chris Gupta
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/04/02/canadas_public_health_agency_bound_and_gagged.htm
PS see comments in body also. CG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Canada’s Public Health Agency:
Bound and gagged?
Early release, published at www.cmaj.ca on Mar. 16, 2004.
Subject to revision.
This Journal has repeatedly called for federal leadership
in public health,1 leadership that would guide us through crises such as
BSE,2 Walkerton3 and SARS4,5 and that would ensure the fundamentals of health
protection, including national surveillance and a national vaccination strategy.6
We have not been alone in advocating a national public health agency. Nothing
is more obvious and more urgently needed than a national body that is independent
of politicians and bureaucrats and dedicated solely to protecting and enhancing
the health of the public. An agency that will lead, not follow.
At the helm of change, Carolyn Bennett, the Minister of State
for Public Health, is charged with “establish[ing] a strong and responsive
public health system… .” 7 Yet, days before the federal budget
is brought down, we find the minister waiting for comments to a discussion
paper8 that could only have been written by senior bureaucrats who have
but a timorous and vague concept of what public health is and whose primary
focus is on “opening a dialogue on public health issues” and
keeping the new agency firmly within their control. “The agency,”
we are informed, “would … operate within the Health Canada portfolio.”
Hello. In the light of widespread outbreaks of old pathogens
and the now almost monthly arrival of new ones from around the world, we
do not need the procrastinations of yet another federal subdepartment of
some other subdepartment reporting to a distant associate of some deputy
minister. We need leadership. We need independence. We need an agency that
is adequately funded and a chief public health officer who can report directly
to the public without the filters applied by bureaucrats and communications
officers.
Good luck. Filters and regulations to protect the vested interests
has become the de facto mandate of governments - so don't expect much...
CG
There is no doubt that, to be effective, public health must
build consensus among often-competing public (and private) institutions,
including government. As the SARS epidemic in Toronto taught us, cooperation
among federal, provincial and local health agencies is not automatic.9 Equally
important, however, is a public consensus based on a coherent understanding
of the facts.10 This larger consensus cannot be achieved by endless federal–provincial
doughnut-and-coffee meetings in hotel meeting rooms, as Health Canada and
the provinces have tried to do for decades and failed, dismally, with tragic
results.
Exactly - who wants to archive consensus when there are benefactors
to protect??? (Of course consensus is archived if it suits the benefactors)
CG
The rapid succession of public health emergencies has convinced
the public that they are inadequately protected and that they live and work
in environments that require risk monitoring. Politicians have also understood.
Minister Bennett has the goal correctly identified, and the government has
made a public commitment to it in the Throne Speech. Provincial politicians
are also in agreement with the creation of the new federal agency. Yet,
for all that, the health ministers in Ottawa and their provincial counterparts
risk underestimating the entrenched sluggishness of their own bureaucracies.
Not so. When that is exactly the desired outcome (delay tactic)
to begin with.... CG
Ontario, for example, recently attempted to shore up its spotty
public health system by appointing the very competent Dr. Sheela Basrur
to replace the former Chief Medical Officer of Health. Wisely, Provincial
Premier McGuinty placed her on a higher stool than her predecessor
she reports directly to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. However,
Dr. Basrur remains hobbled by resources (for a population of 11.4 million)
that are not much more than those of a small doughnut franchise.
Yet they have all the recourses in the world to protect the
medical Mafia form competition. Competition from cost effective, strong,
and safe nutritional supplements to improve health care... CG
Minister Bennett and her cabinet colleagues must extricate
themselves from the inertia of bureaucracy and discussion papers. They must
take the bold step needed to create a truly independent national public
health agency. The appointment of the chief public health officer must be
credible. And the budget, to be revealed shortly, must rapidly bring to
the agency the estimated $1 billion that it will need to do the job.9
CMAJ
1) A Canadian agency for public health: If not now, when?
[editorial]. CMAJ 2003;169(8):741.
2) From nannyism to public disclosure: the BSE inquiry report
[editorial]. CMAJ 2001;164(2):165.
3) Public health on the ropes [editorial]. CMAJ 2002;166(10):1245.
4) Lessons from SARS [editorial]. CMAJ 2003;168(11):1381.
5) SARS: the struggle for containment [editorial]. CMAJ 2003;168(10):1229.
6) A patchwork policy: vaccination in Canada [editorial].
CMAJ 2003;168(5):533.
7) Canada House of Commons Debates (Hansard). Speech from
the Throne. 37th Parliament, 3rd sess, 2004, vol 139, no 001.
8) Bennett C. Strengthening the pan-Canadian public health
system [discussion paper]. Ottawa: Health Canada;2004. (updated 2004 Feb
27; accessed 2004 Mar 15).
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.