re: What's Good For The Goose - August 27, 2011

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published August 29, 2011 with minor editing)


Having been plagued by Canada geese on golf courses and at beaches for years, I read this article with great interest.  But I note that, while scaring the geese off City property is beneficial for both the budget and the users, care is being taken not to harm them.  Where are these geese going to go?  I would be concerned if I were a private property owner with lake frontage not adjacent to a City park.  The bottom line is that there are simply too many of these birds.

It did bring to mind the sacred cows in India during periods of famine.  I wonder how many poor and homeless people could be fed by a single Canada goose?

re: Provincial Initiative Targets ER - June 1, 2011

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published June 9, 2011)

I was pleased to read of the provincial initiative to streamline the emergency room procedures across the province. The comment by Dr. Lepage that the lack of beds at the Sudbury Regional Hospital may reduce the benefit was telling, though. If I recall correctly, the original plan for the new hospital, back in the late 1990's, was to have a facility with 600 beds. However, after the building fiasco, this was reduced to 429. Why then would anyone be surprised that we have a current bed shortage? But then they didn't even provide enough parking spaces for the smaller hospital.

This reality, coupled with the shortage of Long Term Care facilities, tells me that those civil servants responsible for planning medical facilities in the north aren't very good at their job. In my opinion, the north in general and Sudbury in particular have been poorly served by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (who are in total control of all aspects of this service) over the last decade. I sincerely hope that this shortcoming will become an issue in the upcoming election.

re: A rose by any other name - January 21, 2011

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,

Minister Bartolucci is quoted in the article as saying "he has received praise from Sudbury doctors for the strides his government has made in addressing the bed crisis". I am not a doctor, merely a voter, but I am not rushing to offer praise.

The Minister's comment implies that he is satisfied with the efforts his government has made with respect to the crisis around long term care beds. I will only be satisfied when the Ministry publicly identifies the total number of long term care patients in the area including those in all the hospital sites, nursing homes and on waiting lists; projects the growth of this segment of our population; and presents a concrete strategy on how all these individuals are to be accommodated in a timely manner in facilities outside our primary care hospital.

The citizens in need of long term care who have contributed to the province's well-being for many years, as well as the users of local hospital services who are now suffering delays in timely treatment, deserve no less in our government operated health care system.

Re: Doctors Rail Against Memorial Closure - January 17, 2010

Read the articles here and here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published January 20, 2011 as Letter of the Day)

For the second time in two days, you have run a story dealing with the impending closure of the SRH Memorial Site. Both articles highlight concerns from citizens and doctors about the negative ramifications of this move. I note that the new ALC beds available in the city can barely accommodate the Memorial residents, leaving a large number of individuals still in the main hospital and on waiting lists.

We have been classed as being in crisis with respect to ALC patients for many years. I would like to remind the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care that, by their very name, this ball is in their court. The government has assumed total responsibility for health care, going so far as to restrict doctors who work outside their system. Why then should they be able to pass the buck on long term care to their puppet LHIN's and the community?

Since we still don't have the capacity for all the ALC patients even with the new beds, the rational decision would be to keep the Memorial Site open until every person requiring long term care is accommodated outside the one-site hospital. While not perfect, opinions are that the Memorial Site it is substantially less costly and qualitatively preferable to the new hospital. In addition, it would be freed up to provide the services it was intended to with less waiting and crowding.

I hear optimistic words from government and hospital administrators. They have been saying the same thing for years. Will the situation actually improve by the time I cast my ballot in the fall provincial election? If the Memorial closes, I sincerely doubt it. I am as mad as hell now and will be doubly so by then. I ask the Ontario government to please stop nibbling at the problem and passing the buck. Step up and face it head on.

re: 'I was in extreme pain' - August 5, 2010

Read Article Here

To the Editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published August 9, 2010)

In reading the article about the gentleman's complaint and Dr. Andrew Caruso's response, I noted that approximately 90 of the 429 beds in our new Sudbury Regional Hospital are presently being occupied by alternative-level-of-care patients. The ALC crisis has been swamping our hospital system in Sudbury for years, interfering with the ability of our medical community to provide timely health care to the remaining citizens.

We have waited for the Sisters of St Joseph facility in Chelmsford to be built and expansion at Pioneer Manor to be completed. In the interim, 136 beds were commissioned at the old Memorial Hospital Site to make up for the lower bed capacity at the new one site hospital, but I see that 36 of those beds were taken out of service last month without explanation and extended funding to keep the Memorial site open is not a sure thing.

Sudbury has an aging population and the capability to deal with older people who require and deserve ALC treatment has been lagging the curve for many years. When will the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care realize that providing Long Term Care is part of their title and mandate. Don't pass the buck by talking about community solutions, LHIN's or the Feds. Step up to the plate with concrete plans and funding to immediately start the process of developing facilities for each and every one of the ALC individuals we can reasonably expect to require the system today and in the foreseeable future. They owe it both to them and to the other patients whose care has been disrupted by the ALC impact on the hospital due to government inaction.

--
Jim 'Skid' Robinson
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Re: Cops take aim at "curb crawlers - June 1, 2010

Read Article Here

To the Editor of the Sudbury Star,
(This letter was not published)

I read this article with great interest. Setting aside any arguments on the actual prostitution laws, GSPS Sgt. Rumford seems quite pleased that they will be targeting individuals who have, in fact, not committed any unlawful activity. The mere act of driving slowly through a certain area will cause the police to send the person a "community safety letter" instructing them to stop this legal activity. The article goes on to say that police will keep an internal list of these people and, if they persist in this legal activity, "criminal charges may follow". I'd be interested in what charges could be laid against someone who has not violated any law.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees anyone present in Canada certain fundamental rights including freedom of association and freedom of movement. It appalls me that our law enforcement community would target and intimidate individuals, who have violated no law, merely because the activity does not meet with police approval. I didn't know that thinking of a criminal act, if this was actually what the individual was doing, would be a legitimate cause for enforcement action.

Shades of George Orwell, it appears Big Brother may be raising his thought controlling head right here in the Nickel Capital.

Re: Not Enough Parking - March 11, 2010

Read Article Here

To the Editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published March 22, 2010)

So once the final patients are moved into the new hospital, it will be short 225 parking spaces?

I am astounded that now, when we are in the absolute final stages of the transition, this tidbit is made public. The hospital spokesperson says that the spaces were considered adequate thirteen years ago when the original designs were done, but I recall that same original scope had significantly more beds that we have today. I have trouble understanding how the beds have been downsized while the parking requirements have been increased. I would suggest that the original specifications weren't sufficient.

Further, they claim they have been aware of this problem for several years but this is the first we publicly hear about it, mere weeks from the time when those spaces will be required. And how much is this shuttle going to add to our already stretched health care costs?

I remember the justification for the high compensation paid to hospital administrators. They need to be on top of everything within their facility and manage it effectively and efficiently. This is just one more example of where the hospital administration has been woefully short sighted in the development of this whole project. As one who will rely on this new hospital for my ongoing health care, I can only wonder with trepidation what other oversights will turn up when all our eggs are in this one basket.