Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Is there a doctor in the House?

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 5, 2011 5:24pm - 42 Comments

Chris Selley questions the medical wisdom of politicians.

It took some flaming cheek for Mr. Dosanjh and Ms. Duncan to claim that “disregarding experts is a dangerous precedent” in an op-ed that involved disregarding — not to mention disrespecting — literally dozens of medical practitioners and researchers. But precious few politicians are capable of resisting the lure of emotionally charged issues, and the opportunities they afford to care out loud. From this appalling cynicism, there seems very little hope of liberation.

For the record, there are four physicians in the House of Commons: Liberals Carolyn Bennett, Hedy Fry, Keith Martin and Bernard Patry.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • s_c_f

    Perhaps Wherry could let us know the position on the issue of those four doctor MPs, and then we would know if Dosanjh and Duncan are disregarding their expertise as well.

    You'd think that if any one of those four doctor MPs supported their position, they might have said so in the op-ed?

    • Jenn_

      I think the very fact that those four doctors were not part of the Dosanjh/Duncan coalition, tells you these two are out of their minds. I can't stand it when we Liberals do this sort of thing–it is stupid and everyone can see it is stupid. Shame on Ignatieff!

      How many clinical trials do you need all at the same time? Isn't the point of a clinical trial to see if the thing works? Saskatchewan has already announced it will do clinical trials. Fine, although I don't think the procedure is at the clinical trial stage yet, I don't have MS, either, and as I understand the procedure it supposedly does no harm. So hows about we find out how SKs trials do before we go all out with this thing! I really hope it works, but Thalidomide was supposed to work, too.

      I know. I make too much sense sometimes.

      • s_c_f

        Yes, I agree. It's quite possible that Dosanjh and Duncan solicited their doctor colleagues on the issue but failed to get their cooperation. I agree with Selley's position… let the doctors sort it out. Since our health care system is nationalized (and thus politicians could potentially wield a lot of power), it's important for the government to butt out, the last thing we want is for the politicians to be influencing the work of doctors.

        • John

          Wrong, Bennett has been out in front of this issue from the beginning.

          • s_c_f

            So, what is her position? The op-ed said nothing about that. Perhaps you could write another sentence or two.

        • madeyoulook

          the last thing we want is for the politicians to be influencing the work of doctors.

          Oh but it is so very too late for that. All we can hope for is that they exert no more hopeless influence than they do already.

          • s_c_f

            I agree. I was thinking about the lack of innovation in Canadian health when I saw this: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/obama…

            In Canada it pretty well goes without saying that hospitals are government funded and not doctor-owned. If you wanted innovation and results, you would need to allow competition and allow experts to try different ways of doing things, exactly what doctor-owned hospitals would provide.

    • A_logician

      For what it's worth, Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan is a medical geographer, (PhD), according to her web site.

  • Emily

    Politicians have always played doctor, so I don't know why it's a surprise to Selley.

  • Dot

    Who is Chris Selley? Why can't I find his bio anywhere?

  • Fido

    Did Selley audition for the role of National Post Drama Queen or was it his by default?

  • Jan

    Here's Dr. Carolyn Bennett on the subject. Don't skip the comments, there's a wealth of information in them.
    http://carolynbennett.liberal.ca/blog/cihr-announ…

  • Crit_Reasoning

    A first-rate piece by Chris Selley, as usual.

    • Dot

      When I saw PW tweet this the other day, I knew you'd be jumping on board soon enough.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        Ah, Dot, the Queen of Failed Snark. If you care to google my comment history, Derek, you'll notice that I've been an outspoken fan of Chris Selley for years.

        • Dot

          If you've been following my comments here on Macleans, you'll notice that I've been an outspoken critic of the use of twitter by the PPG to foster groupthink.

          Apparently, I'm not the only one noticing. Who do you suppose was in the crosshairs here? :

          It also might be fun to reprint some of the juicier comments from certain journalists on the Twitter machine and elsewhere about Kory over the last few months. I have a nagging feeling there’s a lesson here about kicking someone while they’re down (or at least perceived to be down) but I just can’t figure out what it is.
          http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/seco…

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I don't care who was in your crosshairs. I get annoyed when I voice an opinion and some jerk suggests that I only hold that opinion because of Twitter or some damned thing.

            Here I am last May, professing (with tongue half in cheek) my undying love for Selley: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/11/the-mother-par…

            The fact is, my fondness for Selley predates your obsession with Twitter (and Twitter itself, for that matter.) If you were a gentleman, you'd apologise.

          • Dot

            I'll apologize if you'd tell me who-tf is Chris Selley, and why does his opinion matter? I know you're also in love with Colby – and I understand – not only for geographic and philosophical reasons, but he has a pedigree of sorts. And he's of a similar age to you. But i challenge him far more harshly than I do you. (btw – you need some toughening up – try attending a two year MBA program with the smartest people ready to jump on your every word to score participation points – don't be such a woose)

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I'll apologize if you'd tell me who-tf is Chris Selley, and why does his opinion matter?

            Selley has a huge body of work in the National Post. Prior to that, he had a great blog here at Macleans. How do you not know this?

            I know you're also in love with Colby

            Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not in love with Cosh. I have no idea why keep making all these idiotic assertions. Also, I'm quite a bit younger than he is.

            btw – you need some toughening up

            Huh? This coming from the guy who regularly leaves in a huff and promises never to return?

            try attending a two year MBA program with the smartest people ready to jump on your every word to score participation points

            As someone who actually teaches MBA students, I would advise you to pull your head out of your @ss.

          • Dot

            I don't care who was in your crosshairs

            Not mine. Rob Silver's. Try the link.

          • Dot

            Btw, you're not the only one with an extremely thin skin. I was just banned from WCI. For this post:

            Yeah, just what we need. Another economist who has probably never even been on an O&G site telling us what to do:

            Yes, please. Will send all traffic I can RT @nree_alberta: Alright, I officially need an energy/environment/#oilsands/#nree blog @ericwarnke
            about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck

            stephenfgordon

            A couple of hours later (presumably after he got out of class where one supposedly fosters independent thought and discussion) I was greeted with this:


            Comment deleted.

            JvfM, you have now worn out your welcome. All of your comments will suffer a similar fate, so don't waste your time and mine. SG

            Posted by: Just visiting from Macleans | January 07, 2011 at 02:53 PM

            I had earlier said that his comments on twitter (directed to PW and K'OM) were tiresome. Also deleted.

            Take note Aaron, when you blindly post SG's comments or link to his blog postings.

    • frequent traveller

      Excellent critical analysis, as usual.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        Since I was merely voicing an opinion, rather than providing critical analysis, I'm going to have to assume that you're Dot in disguise, stirring up trouble again. Bad Dot! Bad!

        • Dot

          Nope. Again no critical reasoning. But, I myself wasn't sure he/she was being sarcastic. You read it the same way I did, however.

  • Jenn_

    I replied to you about three hours ago on Selley, and it hasn't shown up yet. Neither an agree or disagree–so I think its IntenseDebates.

  • peter

    Most doctors are decent people, but like BC politicians, they have operated in a system that is and has been so corrupt for so long that it is as accepted as "normal". I don't know what the market for MS drugs is, but I'll wager it's huge (and lasts until the patients die.)

    Given the rampant corruption in financial/stock markets, obvious to anyone with a pulse, what makes anyone think drug companies are any different than any other Wall St. huckster? Does anyone seriously believe that an industry built on a lifetime of drug dependancy for its clients is going to lay down for a saner approach that works and destroys their share price? Heaven forbid patients should have a choice in seeking relief.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Yeesh. Get a life, Dot.

    • Dot

      The pattern exists, as you know. You probably remember the last (first chronologically):

      Handy test: If you think Chris Selley is a "Natpost teabagger," just stop following me now and save me the trouble of blocking your a$$.
      9:33 PM Jan 4th via TweetDeck

      So now I block that moron like I blocked the last 40 idiot hyperpartisans and the next 300 with 'em.
      9:27 PM Jan 4th via ÜberTwitter

      RT @DubiyaGeeBeeTee: @InklessPW He says Tory actions represent Cdn "mainstream"& that is horsesh*t, not good … http://tmi.me/53BLI
      9:56 PM Jan 4th via ÜberTwitter

      Really excellent work here from Chris RT @cselley: Chris Selley: Beware of politicians playing doctor http://bit.ly/hCOMck
      10:14 PM Jan 4th via ÜberTwitter

      • Humble observer

        Is there anything more embarrassing than @InklessPW 's Twitter feed? It's this weird David Lynch world in which the Press Gallery and Grade 8 blend inextricably.

  • Healthcare Insider

    Not everyone with MS is on medication. There are two forms of the illness. People with the first type have outbreaks where they manifest symptoms for a period of time and then they go intoa kind of remission. With the second type of MS, there is a steady decline in function with no remission and constant symptoms. The people with the second type of MS are almost always on medication. The quandry with this treatment lies with what MS is – the breakdown in the myelin sheath that surrounds nerve cells. How does scraping away the placque in a major blood vessel in the neck diminish the symptoms of MS? Neurologists say it isn't possible; vascular surgeons & some patients who have had it done say it does.

    • wheelie

      As an MSer, you have it wrong Healthcare insider. There are at least 4 forms. The RR types ie relapsing remitting are the ones offered meds. The kind I have, no remission, is not offered meds-you are mixed up.

  • DBM

    Brace yourself for the attack of the chiropractors (who are really real doctors. Really.), Aaron.

  • TJCook

    Such as our Creationist Minister of Science and technology. Really.

  • Mike T.

    I'm sure he won't get too bent out of shape over it!

  • Healthcare Insider

    The problem is that the experts do not agree so the doctors in the house are not going to be much help. What I mean to say is that the neurologists who traditionally look after MS and the vascular surgeons who are performing this new procedure disagree about whether or not it is in fact a safe and valuable treatment for MS. Thus, the physicians in the house would have to pick a side. No really good studies have been done in North America and so yes, Saskatchewan should do the study first and then follow-up studies can be done. Of course, concurrent studies could be done in different provinces, however, if they yielded opposing results, more studies would be required before the govts. would okay funding the treatment, which is somewhat risky.

  • Dot

    Isn't the difference here partly due to the economic incentives? For a new drug, a pharmaceutical company has an economic interest to have clinical trials etc . For new procedures, isn't the incentive different? It's the gov't health system that pays for the studies as it has the incentive, no? I'm asking, not stating btw.

  • MostlyCivil

    Actually, the process for approval through Health Canada is pretty much the same, be it procedural or drug product. They need peer-reviewed science, reasonable clinical trials and safety data.

    Any government would be quite happy to be able to offer a quick cure to a condition that requires a lot of expensive care as the patient ages and the condition progresses. However, they really, really need to be sure of the science first. And jumping ahead of basic trials to go right to human trials won't help.

  • BCer in Mtl

    I would be curious to know what Selley's opinion is on some other subjects, for instance statistical validity of the survey replacing the Long Form Census; or the twisted interpretation of the mandate of the Nuclear Safety Commission (not to mention the PM' assertion, counter to regulatory standards, that the reactor was no risk).

  • Dot

    Thanks. How would you differentiate between "basic trials" and "human trials" in this specific case?

  • MostlyCivil

    Basic trials? For MS, they would need to show that MS patients have the vein blockages at a much higher rate than those found in the general population. They would also need to somehow show, perhaps through using MS patients at different stages of diagnosis, that progression of the blockages was smehow related to the MS. All this would lead to the "human trials', (or "phase 3" clinical trials) where you could, under tight controls, do the procedure and follow the results. The difference is between observation and intervention.

Previous

Next

From Macleans