Friday, June 11, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Who Is Policing My Health Care?
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Promising%20treatment%20could%20divide%20advocacy%20group/3119996/story.html
As people run for positions on an Ontario MS Society board, things become more clear in the battle for new treatment for ms via another condition and old medicine.
This board member recommends voting for someone already on the board and not for a person running on a single issue. No one who sits on an active board can deal with just one thing. That's like Stephen Harper saying his government was going to only do 5 things. But a single issue in this case might be warranted.
The board member continues.
"The MS Society functions on well balanced principles: support to people living with MS, and research to find a cure." Hussey.
For this stated principle I would vote for the people running on a CCSVI platform.
The CCSVI as a platform addresses both these. Why would the MS Society not see this as priority #1? That is suspicious.
And that they are concerned that this might affect the National level of the Society - I say good. Don't be afraid of change. Little has happened to change MS in the past 40 years, speaking as a second generation MS sufferer.
And almost finally, why does the Society recommend anything to the Ministry? Government and science should be talking - is the Society an interloper? A middle man?
Why are the Boards full of doctors? How does this structure work that a non-profit funded by our donations run by doctors and businessmen chooses what research to fund and what direction to go?
I want my government to fund and decide my health directly just like with cancer or heart issues. Why does the Society decide these sorts of things? And who polices them?
As people run for positions on an Ontario MS Society board, things become more clear in the battle for new treatment for ms via another condition and old medicine.
This board member recommends voting for someone already on the board and not for a person running on a single issue. No one who sits on an active board can deal with just one thing. That's like Stephen Harper saying his government was going to only do 5 things. But a single issue in this case might be warranted.
The board member continues.
"The MS Society functions on well balanced principles: support to people living with MS, and research to find a cure." Hussey.
For this stated principle I would vote for the people running on a CCSVI platform.
The CCSVI as a platform addresses both these. Why would the MS Society not see this as priority #1? That is suspicious.
And that they are concerned that this might affect the National level of the Society - I say good. Don't be afraid of change. Little has happened to change MS in the past 40 years, speaking as a second generation MS sufferer.
And almost finally, why does the Society recommend anything to the Ministry? Government and science should be talking - is the Society an interloper? A middle man?
Why are the Boards full of doctors? How does this structure work that a non-profit funded by our donations run by doctors and businessmen chooses what research to fund and what direction to go?
I want my government to fund and decide my health directly just like with cancer or heart issues. Why does the Society decide these sorts of things? And who polices them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
