Survey  Results

Home>Kincardine>2008>February

by Fred Kirby                              February 6,  2008

Tonight at Council the future of the Kincardine Medical Centre will be debated and a decision will be made how to resolve the major drainage problems that have beset the clinic since it opened. Flooding in the lower level offices followed by mould led to the closing of the lower level. The question before Council is how to proceed from here after hearing from engineering consultants, Conestoga-Rovers and Associates.

The engineering firm outlined two options, the medical staff want a third option to be considered, others may be tabled at Council. The public know of the two options tabled by the engineering firm and are aware that the medical staff has a third option though details are not available.

I have spoken to many o f the principals involved in this issue; I have been asked where I stood. At the beginning of last week I thought the second option with specific improvements such as a canopy would be acceptable, but as I now write I believe that accepting either of the two options is just throwing good money after bad. The debate has been so compromised by attitudes, behaviour, and poor communications among participants since plans to build a clinic were first discussed, that nothing will be resolved by either option. The initial position of the committee in setting a budget rather than first determining needs led to poor decisions; the issue of the canopy discussed below is an example of this approach. A canopy and drive-through are not cosmetic frills. The uncompromising attitude of Council and the hiring of an inexperienced architect, even when forewarned, does not give me confidence.

Too often the story you get depends on the person you speak to. I have written many times about the lack of a canopy over the front door where passengers can disembark and embark. The public never once got an explanation from Council as to why that never happened. I now discover the original plans did not include one. At the second planning meeting Dr. Gurbin pointed out this glaring oversight but it was never included because of costs.

I know from the minutes that rooms were cut out of the plans because their cost did not fit the budget. When I asked about the concern by medical staff that the examining rooms are too small, I am told that it was the medical staff that determined the measurements. My own experience leads me to support the medical staff’s claim they gave the architect general information and it was left to the architect to make the final determination. To the doctors’ claim they were not consulted, councillors’ response was that the doctors attended all the meetings. If the doctors’ recommendations were ignored and if they expressed their disagreement with the committee’s decisions, how is this seen as collaboration and later, agreement? Apart from the medical staff, no one told me there was this disagreement only that staff had been thoroughly consulted.

No one is lying; it is just that facts are not given in full, and stories are coloured to justify decisions. For example, when enquiring about the consultation with the doctors, I was told the doctors wanted a roof garden – as if this justified not listening to them. Such a statement simply poisons the well, especially when said in a dismissive tone; it is a well-known technique damaging a reputation by telling, out of context, only part of the truth. It is no way to lower the temperature of a dispute. This was one more reason for my decision not to support the two presented options. Decisions should not be based on half-truths and innuendoes. Nor should they be made by councillors who have not read the files; and how objective will be Mayor Kraemer’s decision considering, as mayor at the time, he approved of the final plans?

I started out to write a conciliatory column seeking compromise and resolution to the issue, but it was not to be, at least not yet. Too many principals, especially councillors, are carrying too much baggage for easy resolution. They all need to start over.

February 13, 2008

The debate about the Right to Life or Choice has stirred once more. Once again we are hearing the cries for legislation banning abortion both in the USA and in Canada. It would be a mistake to do so.

I support the right to choose but add that I have reservations. I do not accept abortion based on gender, a practice common in some cultures. It not only assumes the lower station of the female but creates a dangerous imbalance between men and women. Nor do I accept irresponsible behaviour that may lead to the need for abortion and though, because of an uncaring society which has refused the necessary support (see below), I would not deny the right to abortion, but it is a decision with which I have difficulty.

The name of the protest, Right to Life, is intellectually dishonest or, at the very least, a misnomer. More accurately it should be called the Right to Birth. After birth it is all potential. When we deny the right for that potential to be developed to its fullest as a living being how can we claim to support the right to life. Being born is a first step; there are many steps to follow before this living being is to fulfill, if ever, its potential-.

When I think of the right to life, I recall the children burnt to cinders by napalm. When someone writes of the number of lives taken by abortion I think of the countless, needless deaths in the Sudan, the Congo, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Burma – the list goes on year after year. Where is their right to life?

The right to life goes beyond short-term counseling and free diapers. It includes parental support, adequate housing, and a healthy diet. It requires a high standard of universal Child Care with Early Childhood Education that is fully integrated into the education system. It includes an education system that is funded to meet the learning needs of the child.

When the Right to Life enthusiasts embrace all of a child’s life and work to assure the fullest development of the child’s potential then I will welcome them to the real struggle.

February 20, 2008

I have been told we should not air our dirty linen in public. The RCMP believes that. If the media had not published stories about the RCMP’s dirty linen then the last commissioner would not have had to resign in disgrace and the current deputy commissioner would not be held in contempt of Parliament for lying under oath. When the Globe and Mail assigned two young reporters to investigate rumours of a Liberal slush fund and exposed the secret disbursement of thousands of dollars, the Chrétien government did not want their dirty linen aired. It is a common response when someone has something to hide. When we are told not to air dirty linen it tends to make us suspicious - is there dirty linen and how much?

It matters not to me whether the information vindicates those who are keeping the truth from the public or shows them to be embarrassed, guilty parties; the public has the right to know.

The Council and doctors met February 11 to hash out their differences and find common ground enabling them to move forward on the Clinic. Amidst all the chatter there were some interesting ideas put forth worthy of consideration. There was also a disconcerting note sounded when the mayor refused to let Dr. Gurbin put on public record his position that during the building of the original clinic the doctors were not consulted. The mayor stopped him speaking on the grounds that it was a matter of litigation and then took Council and the doctors in camera. I did not hear Dr. Gurbin say anything about discussing the litigation and he tells me he did not mention it. We do not know whether the mayor did not want the issue of consultation to become public or whether he is too quick to describe everything as part of the litigation.

Now we have Guy Anderson, Larry Kraemer, Randy Roppel, and Ken Craig stating that the doctors were consulted at every stage and “played an intricate role in the building’s initial design”. Without seeing the actual records, which are denied me, I cannot comment on the truth or falsity of these claims but they do raise questions. On the second day of discussing the architect’s design, Dr. Gurbin raised his concern that there was no canopy or drive-thru in the design. Since there still is no canopy or drive-thru one must conclude that his concern was ignored. Will any of the above four swear that when various rooms were cut out of the plans, they sat down with the doctors to discuss the cuts and did the doctors agree? When the critical archives were first placed in the electrical room, were the doctors and Clinic management consulted and did they agree to this incomprehensible decision? Did this “intricate role” include choice of architect and why do doctors now insist a say in the choice of architect in any new project? I do not remember the doctors wanting a two-story building so why was that necessary when today a one-story building is acceptable? An explanation would clear the air.

It is said the doctors are resorting to blackmail when doctors tell us they will leave if the clinic is not built to their satisfaction. Any person who is not satisfied with the terms of employment has the right to leave their employment. There are pleasant, small towns throughout Southwestern Ontario who would welcome doctors. There are better facilities in many of these municipalities than we have here and are not begrudging of doctors. Doctors do not have to blackmail anyone. Even retirement is a better choice than enduring the nonsense of Council. Mayor Kraemer and the councillors ought to have kept this in mind when they set out to build a clinic.