Extraordinary people found on the Island
Jack Knox’s column about Kathleen Booth was spot on when Kathleen’s daughter Amanda said:
“I think we have more than our fair share of people like that on the Island.”
It reminded me of an enjoyable conversation I had aboard a 91原创-bound ferry in August, in the “dog room.” The individual I was conversing with was a “Kathleen Booth-type” — unassuming and even a bit reluctant, but trapped for an hour and a half, I learned of some amazing accomplishments and significant international recognitions that accrued to my fellow dog-parent.
He shall remain nameless for protection of his privacy and for the fact that when people asked “what was your line of work?” he said his usual reply was “I drove trucks.”
Michael Faulkner
View Royal
A calm, thoughtful way to discuss major issues
Re: “As monarch vanishes from ferries, take a deep breath,” Nov. 6.
I find Jack Knox’s recent column to be most encouraging. Not particularly with regard to the controversial issue of hanging a portrait of the new king on our B.C. ferries; that I will leave to ensuing debate.
But rather, it is the calm tenor of his approach to debating the matter in question that reassures me. Knox is admonishing the way we have come to express our viewpoints. We hit hard and fast, with both sides quickly becoming entrenched in their opinions.
In the expressive words of Knox, we are often found “knee jerking into a reaction,” rather than stepping back and “taking a breath,” or pausing to think before we speak. So often today, we fail miserably to listen to those with whom we disagree.
Old-fashioned civility has been replaced with name calling, over-yelling, rudeness and the attitude that no other opinion really counts. Are we really going to mimic the tragic state of the body politic playing out in the United States?
Are we so entrenched in our personal opinions that our public discourse comes down to a kind of “tribalism,” one side pitted against the other?
Or can we still respect differing points of view? Can we still have our views and perspectives changed by new ideas, sound reasoning and effective persuasion?
I am the first to admit that, as a political figure and party member, I did not always seek compromise nor listen as well as I should have done. But today, it is imperative we listen to each other more closely for the good of our communities, the nation and our ailing planet.
Robin Blencoe
Victoria
Doctor compensation has serious weaknesses
Re. “New doctor structure doesn’t reward efficiency,” letter, Nov. 4.
The writer rightly pointed out that the new doctors deal does not reward efficiency. Neither does the deal reward family physicians for their years of experience.
Under the new deal a doctor with 10, 20 or 30 years of experience will earn almost the same, around $400,000, as a new medical graduate. I do not recall any profession where work experience is not rewarded either monetarily or non-monetarily; a new law graduate cannot expect to earn the same as a lawyer with 10 or 20 years of experience.
This inequity is more unsettling than the inequity that currently exists in physician compensation when we look at how much a hospitalist is paid compared to how much an average family physician earns.
The new deal also prides itself that physicians will be paid based on time spent on patients, complexity of patients, and number of visits but does not mention the challenge it presents for audit and monitoring of physicians’ billings; this places another layer of perverse incentive in this deal.
The primary focus of the deal is on building physician capacity so that every British Columbian has a family physician.
However, having a family physician is just the first step in the present crisis; the deal needs to ensure that every British Columbian has timely access to a physician’s care. If after this restructuring, one still waits for two to three weeks to see a family physician, as is the case for most who currently have a family physician, we are not much better off.
This is likely to happen because there is no focus on managing demand. In the hype of this restructuring, these issues may not be apparent in the early years of this deal but down the road they are likely to present significant challenges to the financial sustainability of this restructuring.
The deal is remarkable, it is unprecedented and provides fair compensation to family physicians. It is therefore important that the compensation methodology be strengthened by addressing these weaknesses so that British Columbia has stability and financial sustainability in family practice for a long time.
Paramjit S. Rana
Victoria
Ask politicians about stance on drug supply
The federal drug policy is directly responsible for more than 10,000 deaths in B.C. and 22,000 in Canada in the past six years. We have decades of evidence of a failed war on drug users.
Our health professionals state that the source of toxic drugs has to be addressed to stop all users from dying. When politicians do not openly call to end the prohibition of drugs, their silence supports organized crime’s toxic supply.
Decriminalization, treatment and opioid replacements will not address the deaths that are occurring from the toxic supply from organized crime. Young people, first-time users, recreational users, most chronic users and those that relapse are not addressed through the current “safe source” policy. Our politicians know this yet will not speak to what will stop these users from dying.
Our elected MPs and MLAs refuse to acknowledge that the federal drug policy is directly responsible for thousands of preventable deaths. When they are asked directly if they support the prohibition of all drugs, they will not give a yes or no answer.
Party policy prevents MPs and MLAs from supporting an end to the prohibition of drugs, as their votes are valued over lives.
To all MLAs and MPs, we ask if you were to lose a son or daughter to the toxic drug supply, could you visit their grave and say to them it’s for the best that we have a prohibition of drugs?
If so, please call the families of the six or more people that die every single day in B.C. from a toxic drug supply and tell them it’s for the best that you support prohibition.
Our son Ryan was poisoned five years ago at age of 26 when he relapsed after eight months of recovery at his job site during his lunch break. Relapse is a normal component of the disease of addiction. What other disease do we allow organized crime to fill the prescription?
Please ask your MP and MLA, “do you support prohibition or legalization to ensure all users of substances are safe?” and hold them to a straight Yes or No answer.
John and Jennifer Hedican
Courtenay
Let’s consider going with simple standard time
Re: “Clocks go back despite experts’ consensus to end daylight time,” Nov. 5.
About a year ago the Times 91原创 published a questionnaire which included a question about preference for either daylight time or other possibilities.
I was very disappointed that my own preference (standard time) was not presented as a possibility. And it proved to be that I was not the only person who experienced this strange omission like this.
“Strange, and not fair” — I thought.
And now I, and others, are again experiencing the same thing: “Clocks go back despite experts’ consensus” sounds authoritarian.
If a perfectly reasonable preference of mine is being refused I would like to know the reason why. And now I am wondering who could answer my question: Why is this simple question regarding daylight time ignored?
Why are we ignoring the experts’ consensus to end it?
And why leave it out of a questiomnaire regarding the very subject?
Alberdina Roosegaarde Bisschop
Victoria
Health data and the gun registry debacle
So, the federal government says they are willing to pay the provinces more money for health care. But, they want “a world class health data system” in return.
Well, there goes the new funding and then some, if building this data system follows the pattern of past federal data systems and hugely over expensive software systems.
The national gun registry, and the Phoenix pay system come to mind. Utter debacles.
Mike Woods
Saanichton
Maybe we need to talk about those urban deer
It’s fall and bucks have only one thing in mind.
It looks like it’s time to set up a(nother) study. That way our newly minted municipal politicians can have the appearance of action and involvement without actually having to risk making a decision or doing something.
Mike Mitchell
Victoria
Time to get serious about culling deer
Much is being said these days with respect to the removal/destruction of many urban trees required to allow for modification of neighbourhood roads.
A much more serious threat to our city trees and urban forests is the continued tolerance of urban deer by various levels of government. A bellwether to me of this fact is the absence of hundreds of seedlings once found in my boulevard and front garden each spring when we moved into this property 25 years ago.
The deer started showing up three years later and then the loss of seedlings (and hedges) began. As the deer are scattered throughout the district, I expect the same loss of seedlings is occurring elsewhere and a close inspection our urban forests such as Vantreight Park, Haro Woods, Uplands Park and the oak meadows on the heights of Mount Tolmie, will all show a lack of future trees.
Humans seem to plan no more than about 50 years into the future so it follows that the loss of new trees won’t be evident until that time has passed and very few trees younger than that age will exist.
Add to that problem the increasing chance of injury to people by stimulated bucks in the autumn rutting frenzy and aimlessly wandering animals on the roads day and night, it is past time for officialdom to act so lets get the cull (eradication) going, and forget darting them with contraceptives!
David Smith
Victoria
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email letters to: [email protected]
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times 91原创, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published. Avoid sending your letter as an email attachment.
