Philip Jong

The adoption of Canada Health Act in 1984 establishes the provision of universal healthcare in providing essential medical services to all Canadians without economic or access barriers. It forbids health professionals and institutions from rendering priority medical care to individuals in return for financial compensation. For the past two decades, our universal healthcare system remains to be a pinnacle achievement by Canada in attempt to deliver efficient and cost-effective medicine. Still, the merit of public versus private healthcare has been an ongoing debate between proponents and opponents of our current system.

More recently, co-operative medicare has been promoted to be the ultimate savoir of our degenerating healthcare system, where public medical care coexists with limited priority medical care that are available to individuals who are willing to pay for “extra” service. Proponents argue that the establishment of such two-tiered system will jeopardize neither quality nor equity of medical care for Canadians. Yet, it is unclear at present how such protection can be guaranteed. In the US, variations in quality of medical care have been linked to the coexisting delivery of managed care and public care. Last month, Canadians witnessed the opening of Canada’s first private primary care centre in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Copeman Healthcare Centre offers services to primary care physicians and in-house specialists for an initial enrolment fee and an annual service charge. Last week, Vancouver’s Cambie Surgical Centre announced plans to open a for-profit surgical hospital in Ontario. As a healthcare professional myself, I believe the prima facie proof must always be the delivery of timely quality medical care to “all” people who seek such service, regardless of what healthcare system or systems may ultimately be employed. If co-operative medicare is to be instituted, the ethical ramification and resource repercussion must be thoroughly explored by all key stakeholders (not just those who may benefit) before it should be made available to Canadians.

On November 28, Canadians saw the falling of the minority Liberal government after its defeat in a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons. This defeat is historic that it is the first motion ever in Parliament to defeat the government on a simple vote of non-confidence. The toppling of the government by the oppositions is the direct fallout of the Gomery Report that has laid blame of the federal sponsorship scandal squarely on the Liberal Party. The next day Canadians witnessed the dissolution of our government by Prime Minister Paul Martin and the call for a general election to be held on January 23. Without delay, the oppositions began their campaigns by accusing the former government of neglecting the needs of the Canadians. Yet, public opinion has openly questioned the awkward timing of the federal election and the true motive of the oppositions. With Christmas only weeks away, most Canadians are focused rightly on preparing for the holiday season with families and friends rather than on listening to political speeches with shady ideals. Campaigning at this time of the year will not allow Canadians the time we need to properly question our future leaders on their political promises and pledges before the historic election date arrives.

The dominance of Microsoft in personal computing is undeniable. The launch of the Xbox 360 last week marks the next effort following the original Xbox by Microsoft to dominate the personal gaming market. Its competitors are the Sony Playstation 3 and Nintendo Revolution that are not due out until 2006. More than a gaming console, the new Xbox differentiates itself from other systems by also billing its own to be the ultimate convergence device for all digital media—music, video, and pictures. Little attention, however, has been given to the “social” convergence that this device may bring. While the powerful hardware of the Xbox 360 is no doubt a technological marvel, its Xbox Live service may turn out to be the “killer” architecture that will bring on true convergence. The development of a persistent online community with its Live Marketplace creates an unique social construct through which gamers around the world can interact seamlessly with each other without ever meeting face to face. Over time, this social convergence beyond any geographical border will make a greater impact on our young generation than any technological convergence such machine may bring. Regardless of which platform emerges as the winner of this console war, ultimately it will be the social and not technological impact it may make that will determine its legacy.

In early November, reports surfaced that music CDs distributed by Sony BMG Music Entertainment had embedded hidden anti-piracy software known as Extended Copy Protection (ECP) inside personal computers used to play its CDs. The ECP software was installed in the form of a “rootkit” that were designed to evade detection by anti-virus or anti-spyware software. While the rootkit itself was not malicious, concerns quickly arose among security experts that other malware might easily exploit this rootkit to piggyback malicious codes. Initially, Sony BMG defended its policy on Digital Rights Management (DRM) by citing its disclosure on the use of such software in its End-User License Agreement (EULA). While I firmly support the need to protect copyrighted materials, I believe Sony BMG had acted in bad faith and not in the spirit of the EULA here. More importantly, such “big brother” mentality assumed an ignorance or indifference among its users that were quickly proven wrong in this case. Last week, the media conglomerate finally admitted to its wrongdoings and recalled all CDs using this copy-protection scheme. A removal tool had also been developed by the company to uninstall the unwanted software. Although its action may signal the beginning of an end to this DRM debacle, it also signals the beginning of a new threat in the era of digital living—the prospect of a big brother who is secretly watching every use of our digital media.

This week the Ontario Human Rights Commission will release a landmark settlement decision with the Toronto District School Board to end the practice of zero tolerance used in school discipline. This settlement was in response to criticisms that the Ontario’s Safe Schools Act inappropriately favored harsher disciplines with black students than students of other ethnicity. While the decision does not imply bias or wrongdoing by the school board, it stands as a direct challenge to public schools in both Canada and US where such practice is widely implemented. Moreover, the policy of zero tolerance has long been regarded as the best strategy in curtailing unwanted behaviours, such as violence and drug use, in students. A suitable replacement may never be found or accepted by all stakeholders. On the contrary, this decision is a wake-up call to question whether such board disciplinary imperative is both morally and socially justified. The zero-tolerance approach ignores mitigating factors or inciting circumstances that may be the root triggers of misguided behaviours in students. It also violates the lawful principle of retribution valued by our society. Abandonment of such policy will force school officials to once again focus their attention on dealing with the prevention rather than the aftermaths of unwanted conducts. The goal of punishment in our schools should be to reform, not to reject.

Last week the Associated Press reported a survey from the Pew Internet and American Life Project that found nearly a fifth of all school-age teenagers in the US had their own blogs. This compared to only about seven percent of all adults who were bloggers. The researchers cited the main reason that teenagers blogged was a desire to be in touch with friends and peers. What has not been said is that such finding also reflects a fundamental change in how our youths communicate with each other as compared to previous generations. This change is more than a mere embrace of new technology but a philosophical adoption of changing means in human interaction. In these blogs, teens can openly express their thoughts and feelings, often anonymously. Other teens can then post their honest responses online. Consequently, blogging has become the high-tech bridge on which open communication takes place in the teen world—a feat that the adult world of today has yet to master.

Tomorrow Justice John Gomery will release his official report from the nine-month public inquiry which he chaired on the scandalous Canadian Sponsorship Program. Launched in 1996, the Sponsorship Program was created to promote federalism and unity across Canada, particularly within the province of Quebec that had past carried sentiments of separatism. When the auditor-general’s report in 2004 detailed questionable practices and gross mismanagement of the program fund, it sparked a national outcry that eventually forced the Government of Canada to announce a public inquiry. In the wake of this federal scandal, political alliances got divided, politicians fell in disgrace, and our nation became the unwanted center stage of political backstabbing, public mistrust, and backdoor illegal dealings. The Gomery Inquiry was equally scandalous, often befalling to the level of a public sideshow of personal ego and political hand-washing. Notwithstanding the monetary price tag Canada has already paid with this national fiasco, the Gomery Report will only serve to remind Canadians the other unmeasured price tag Canada will have to pay for years to come—the loss of our trust of our government to do what is best in our interest. 

For the past weeks the medical, political, and economic threats stemmed from the avian flu virus had grown on a global scale. Of particular concern is the H5N1 strain of the bird flu virus that exhibits marked homology to the deadly H1N1 strain which caused the Spanish flu of 1918 and infected an estimated 20-40 percent of the world’s population. First reported in 1997, the reemergence (or more properly, redetection) of this virus in the wild in both Asia and Europe has now created panics among the public health officials around the world, fearing that human-to-human transition of this virus will create an unstoppable pandemic.

While human deaths have been reported from the avian flu, current mode of transmission is still restricted from only birds to human. Still, European Health Commission was quick to declare last week the spread of bird flu from Asia into Europe to be a “global threat” requiring immediate international action. A less specific declaration had also been made previously by the World Health Organization which warned of a substantial risk of an influenza pandemic in the near future, most probably from the H5N1 strain. In Ottawa, health ministers from around the world will convene this week with the intent to strengthen the global response to this potential influenza pandemic in the making. If this effort is successful, it will stand in history as a precedent of a unified global cooperative effort in the prevention rather than treatment of a global disease.

In recent months reports of natural disasters have continuously dominated the news media. From Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the US to the Tsunami and Earthquake in South Asia, the endless string of natural disasters this year has captured the world’s sympathy. Every day, sights and sounds of human suffering in the affected areas are recorded on film and broadcasted over the airwaves. The constant bombardment of humanitarian catastrophes has left all of us with little else but an utter sense of helplessness. We are fast experiencing disaster overload and tragedy fatigue, choosing instead to shelter ourselves from the world to protect our own sanity. Rather, in these times we must remind ourselves not to withhold our compassion for others who have been afflicted by such calamities, for they are tragic reminders that all things which we hold so dearly may be so easily taken away.

On September 25, an outbreak of respiratory illness began in a nursing home in Toronto, Canada. When neither the source nor the etiology of the outbreak could initially be identified by public health officials, media and public attention quickly grew on the developing outbreak. News agencies in the US and worldwide began to compare the virulent outbreak to that of SARS in 2003, despite no medical evidence existed to suggest the pathogen was that causing SARS. As the death toll from this outbreak rose, public fear was further heightened by the suggestion that a new or mutated virus might be the cause. A disconnect began to grow between the “real” truth and the “perceived” truth of the outbreak.

When the cause was finally identified to be due to Legionnaires’ disease, a known and not uncommon respiratory illness, the gap between these two versions of truth had grown so large that many of the public could no longer tell apart the factual and frictional elements of the outbreak. Proper delivery of public health must involve more than the prevention and treatment of diseases, but the education of the public (and the media) so that unjustified speculation and fear will not run rampant as they had during this public health crisis.