WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS

A letter from one of our readers addressed to C.A.G.E.'s vice-president Iro Cyr, that speaks volumes on how public health is hurting more than it is helping. And please don't think that Nadia is an isolated incident. We are surrounded with persons that are either too afraid to say what is on their mind or too fearful to tip the pot in fear of being labelled as negative or disgruntled. If you have had just about enough of your life being dictated by those who are paid to serve us, please remember that you are not alone. Massively expressing it to our elected officials will inevitably turn our whispers into cries.

Quite frankly, I don't know where to begin.... I have often felt as the "odd" duck throughout my life. I am a 43 year old woman living in Ontario and I am filled with such anger and feel as though my opinions and beliefs have been ignored. I am known as a very outspoken and passionate person. I have a problem being told what I should think and how I should act or react in a situation. It's not that I have an issue with being told what to do but I do have a very BIG issue with being told what to do when not given a good enough or valid reason for doing it.

When I read your biography on line, I was so inspired to see that you had the ambition and drive to go after what you believed in. I respected your passion and commitment for the cause at hand. When I was reading your biography, I had shivers up my back as I truly made a connection with what you stood for. It never ceases to amaze me as to how many people fear "freedom of speech & expression". I am in an environment that feels as though I am surrounded by robots that are willing to go day to day without having an option or at least not bothering to express what they really feel.

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH WITH OUR GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION!!!! I am a first generation Canadian. My parents immigrated here from Europe almost 50 years ago and when they arrived, they weren't given any sort of financial or emotional support like they do for the immigrants of today. My parents recalled having a bus pick them up early in the mornings to go work in the fields. My parents never collected a dime from Welfare as the were never told what Welfare was or what Government programs were available to them. They lived in Montreal when they first came and then made their way to Hamilton, Ontario. Not only did they not know the system but they also had a language barrier issue. I have enormous respect for both of them and it angers me so much to see that some of their liberties are being taken away after sacrificing so much to the success of this country. It was on their broken backs that this Government prospered and now that they are retired, this Government will not allow them to sit in a cafe and have a cigarette.

My parents are seniors and live in an apartment and just recently I heard that these non-smoking advocats are now considering the banning of smoking in apartment buildings....Where the hell do they get off???

My parents are old and they both smoke, have always smoked and will continue to smoke. What right do persons have to tell other people what they can do in the privacy of their own home? What will be next?? Don't people see that everytime we allow the government to create another senseless law that we are giving up another one of our freedoms. Just because a particular law may not apply to someone, the public fails to see that the Government is closing us in more and more. These bureaucrats that sit in parliament get paid to make up and support laws regardless of how stupid or inappropriate they may be. They need to justify their jobs and positions at the expense of Canadians and their rights.

It makes me ill when I hear persons say "we are a free country"!!! Everyday we are becoming less free than the day before. Now with the excuse of a recession, the term "socialist" is becoming clearer. A system of social organization (namely our Government) in which the means of producing and distributing good is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Ontario's Premier, Dalton McGuinty has now passed a Harmonized Tax in Ontario stating that the reason for this is to help the Ontario economy to recover from the recession. What a lot of hogwash!!! This is going to cost the average home an extra $500 to $600 annually. We are already tripled taxed!! I pay tax to work, I pay tax to eat and soon we will be paying a tax to breath!

I am so tired and frustrated with the people of this country for being so passive. I am now frustrated with Health Canada and their failure to actively reasearch the ecigarette that is now available in the USA and abroad. I have been a smoker for over 20 years and I have tried every method available to quit. I am very interested in this new electronic cigarette and would like it available to me. Now, I am a level headed and reasonable person and do know that the FDA in the US is a lot quicker at releasing items to the public a lot more freely than Canada. I do think that Health Canada should further reaserch the ecigarette but I want them to assure me that they will examine it and not sweep it under the carpet. If they can allow the patch, the inhaler and the gum just to name a few, then why not allow this gadget. We all know why and it's about time that we step up.

I have so many more issues that I want to get off my chest and do not have platform to do so. I am sorry for sending such a long winded email but I am at my witts end. Thank you for listening and most importantly for what you stand for!

Nadia Kosta

THE PERLEY VETERAN SMOKING ROOM

An update on the Perley Veteran smoking room (for background see THE PERLEY VETERANS SAGA CONTINUES and ARE PEOPLE RESIDENTS OR INMATES?).

While they finally got their room, at least one journalist – Earl McRae – is starting to understand how over the top the fear of second hand smoke has become. Actually, although we know that the propaganda does feed the hype of a number of hypochondriacs, we don’t believe that most people are afraid of second hand smoke. Many non-smokers simply don’t speak out because 1) They don’t care since it’s not affecting their lives 2) Go along with it because they don’t like the smell of burning tobacco. It is too bad that many people only care and get involved in an issue when it affects them directly and by then it’s already too late because the precedent has been established. Many of the modern day campaigns against this and that, take their model from the anti-smoking campaign. For those who are apathetic to the smoking issue, may we remind them that ‘’first they came for the jews…’’.

Room to improve

Veterans finally have their smoking lounge, some of the time ...

By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

The aged war vet was angry. I encountered him in the corridor leaving the smoking room at the Perley and Rideau Veterans Health Centre where he'd just had his third cigarette of the day.
Yes. Believe it. The renovated room is finally open. After months of opening promises and letdowns that confused and frustrated the smokers who had to go outside to indulge their pleasure -- their frail health vulnerable to rotten weather -- the room that the benevolent you, the public, made possible with some $80,000 in donations opened last Thursday.

I went over yesterday to check it out, not expecting anymore glitches, (surely no more glitches), and saw the sign: Hours Of Operation 9:15-17:00 Daily.

Hold it. The room is open only between 9:15 in the morning and 5 o'clock in the afternoon?

"No one told us this," said the vet bitterly. "It's saying 'We don't like you smoking, so we're only going to let you smoke up to 5 o'clock.' They're treating us like children. Bloody ridiculous."

Ridiculous, indeed. Does the Perley and Rideau think smokers automatically stop smoking at 5 p.m. each day only to automatically start again at 9:15 a.m.? What is the room -- a retail shop with closing and opening hours, including for holidays?

Does the Perley and Rideau believe bad weather only happens between 9:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. after which lovely weather automatically sets in making it a delight for the smokers to once again go outside between 5 p.m. and 9:15 a.m. the next day?

"I had to go outside last night to smoke," said the vet. "Why in blazes can't that room be open 24 hours? I'm telling you, they're trying to discourage us from smoking. Sure I'm addicted, but it's what I enjoy. At my goddamn age in life, I don't need do-gooders trying to get me to stop."

The room for the smokers is off a smaller non-smoking room that connects to the main corridor. The smoking room is windowless, not large. Maximum Occupancy -- 6 Persons, says its sign. Six? It's big enough to comfortably seat more. It has two green, hard plastic chairs. A round table with two ashtrays. Thirty-eight butts are in the ashtrays.

Another sign on the smoking room door: You Have To Live Here To Smoke Here. And Due To The Grave Health Effects Of Second-Hand Smoke, Employees Are Not Required To Enter. Grave health effects from second-hand smoke? From the smoke that is being provincially-standard, state-of-the-art ventilated to the outside? Give me a colossal break. You'd think "employees" would be stepping into the screaming hell of a thousand, torturous, diseases.

FIRE-RETARDANT APRONS

And in the outer-room, what were those six plastic, beige aprons hanging on hooks, aprons with the printed words Smoking Lounge?

Fire-retardant aprons? The smokers so careless they have to put on these aprons, kind of like an apron being put on a child in a highchair? Aprons to be worn voluntarily? Or enforced?

I phoned Paul Finn. He's managing director of the Perley and Rideau Foundation that co-ordinated the fund-raising. A non-smoker, Finn has been a huge supporter of the room for the smokers. A hero, no villain. The delays, the glitches, were outside his control.

The closing and opening hours sign. "The room doesn't shut down at 5 p.m. until the next morning. By law, it has to close each day for cleaning, but only for two hours and 15 minutes after 5 p.m. Except for that, it's open 24 hours." The sign is wrong, he says, needs to be clarified, and will be.

The aprons? He was puzzled. "I don't know about that. I didn't see them. I'll find out and let you know on Monday."

Finn said there will be more furnishings for the room to make it pleasant, including wall ceramics, and a large, flat-screen, high definition TV. "We want to thank all those who made the room possible. Since it opened, we've received calls from people saying thank you."

On the wall outside the entrance off the corridor, are two gold plaques: One crediting the "individuals and businesses" who "generously supported" the room; the other a dedication of the room on behalf of District G, Ontario Command, the Royal Canadian Legion.

The words on those two got it right.

TO LIVE OR NOT TO LIVE, WHO SHOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION?

At one time, when public healthcare was far less politicized, we wouldn’t have paid much attention to an article such as the one we are bringing to your attention (below) because it was indeed normal that researchers conduct studies in order to understand the function of the human body. However, because of so much alarm over how costly public healthcare is becoming due to an aging population, and the recent very disturbing news about UK doctors calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives, the implications of such a study raise serious ethical concerns.

The authors of this study have examined the survival rates of elderly patients treated for heart failure in order to give physicians better tools to make decisions on whether an elderly patient with heart failure should be treated to prolong their life or sent to end-of-life care. Our uncompromising belief is that regardless of the statistical findings and probabilities, the bottom line, without further discussion, is that this decision must be left up to the patient and the patient alone, even if medical intervention had a mere 1% chance to prolong his/her life. Consequently we dare hope that this is not a prelude that will lead to further calls similar to the one from the UK doctors, but how can we be sure after everything we have been witnessing in the last couple of years?

While the CBC article highlights the main findings of the study, it leaves out the very important limitation that should be the one and only factor that ethically matters when treating patients of any age:

‘’Second, although median survival is reported in units of time, it is still a probabilistic measure such that the actual survival for individual patients may vary substantially. Although we stratified patients with HF based on clinical characteristics and a composite HF risk score, it is still not possible to predict with certainty the expected survival of an individual patient.’’

Study estimates expected survival time for patients with heart failure

TORONTO - A new study suggests people suffering from heart failure may not have long to live, with an average survival time of 2.4 years.

The work, published in the American Heart Journal, attempted to quantify how long patients with the condition might expect to live - along the lines of life expectancy estimates for cancer.
Lead author Dr. Dennis Ko, a scientist with the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto, said having a better sense of a prognosis will help patients and their physicians make important decisions, such as whether it would be worthwhile to undergo an invasive treatment or whether palliative care options should be explored.

"Most of the time when a physician treats his patient, he emphasizes the quantity of life. 'I want to make you live longer' and such," Ko said in an interview.

"But at some point I think the focus has to be shifted to more quality of life."
Formerly called congestive heart failure, the common condition is used to describe a state in which the heart can no longer keep up with what is required of it.

A variety of diseases can damage the heart muscle and lead to heart failure. The inefficient pumping action reduces blood flow to bodily tissues and the weakened ability to return the blood to the heart leads to pooling or congestion in the veins.

It's long been known that the condition is associated with a high death rate. But doctors have had only imprecise answers to offer when faced with the question, "How long do I have to live?"
So Ko and colleagues studied 9,943 patients newly hospitalized with heart failure in Ontario between 1999 and 2001. While the patients ranged in age from 20 to 105 years, the average age was 75.8 years. The male-female breakdown was virtually half and half.

The researchers found patients who were at very high risk based on their health status lived only a median of three months. (Median is a measure that establishes the halfway mark between two points, in this case the shortest and the longest survival period.)

Those who were at high risk survived a median of eight months.

The median survival time for the entire group was 29 months. By five years, nearly 70 per cent of the patients had died.