I was excited to read recently about a small Lhoosk’uz Dené community in northern British Columbia which finally has a steady supply ofclean tap water. Village leaders approached the University of British Columbia to help them develop a water treatment system that uses a combination of ultraviolet light and chlorine disinfection to ensure the water in the community is safe enough to drink.
The innovative system is simple to operate and can be maintained and repaired without having to call in specialists from other places or pay for expensive parts. The community partnered with a team of scientists and engineers that use a collaborative, community-driven approach to develop practical drinking water solutions for rural Canadian communities. The new water system in the Lhoosk’uz Dené village ends a 14-year boil water advisory.
The good news story reminded me of an installation I saw at the Art Gallery of Ontario a few years ago by Ruth Cuthand. It was calledDon’t Breathe, Don’t Drink. The blue tarp on the table is the kind used for hastily constructed shacks people on one reserve had to move into when black mold was discovered in the drywall in their homes.
The glasses of water on the table contain plastic and beaded representations of the different kinds of bacteria and parasites found in the water on northern Canadian reserves that have boil water advisories.
The artist put some of the bacteria-filled water into baby bottles to remind us that children may be drinking this contaminated water too.
I am glad those kinds of problems are over for at least one Indigenous community. According to a government of Canada website as of today, there are still 32 communities in Canada with boil water advisories in effect. Let’s hope that innovative solutions like the one found for the Lhoosk’uz Dené community can be created for those 32 communities as well.
In the latest update from the personal care home where my father is a resident, we were informed that visiting privileges would be expanded to include anyone who is two weeks past their second vaccination date. Previously only two designated family members could visit and now others will be able to visit as well, as long as they are fully vaccinated.
All visitors however will still need to wear masks and goggles, do a covid questionnaire, have their temperature taken before entering and stay six feet away from their loved ones.
Ironically another section of the same newsletter responded to numerous inquires from families about whether all the care aides who look after people in the personal care home have been fully vaccinated. The administrators of the home simply don’t know.
Vaccination is still voluntary according to the provincial government and employers cannot ask if a worker is vaccinated. They can offer on-site vaccinations, encourage employees to get vaccinated, and educate employees about vaccination, but they can’t terminate their employment if they aren’t vaccinated.
I would be the last person to criticize long term care workers. Every day when I visit my father I see the vital and very challenging job they do. According to a Canadian Health Care Institute-funded research paper long term care workers are generally middle-aged women, with a high school diploma, who speak English as their second language.
They are paid on average in Canada $18.95 an hour and 25% of them work in more than one care facility for financial reasons because they can’t get enough hours at a single placement. This despite the fact experts recommend long term care facilities should have a lower patient to caregiver ratio than they currently do.
I understand that much needs to be done to improve long term care workers’ salaries and working conditions. We are not treating them fairly given the extremely important work they do. But is it fair to require them to be vaccinated?
A City News story earlier this month said Ontario is making vaccination mandatory for all long term care workersand British Columbiais considering it as well. Is it something Manitoba should consider too?
Each year I choose a signature word. Acceptance is my 2021 word. One goal I’ve set is learning to accept people who have beliefs different than mine.
I have to admit that kind of acceptance is a bit tough for me right now when it comes to people adamant about not getting vaccinated. They make me angry because their choice could mean others will get sick and maybe even die, and their decision may ultimately prevent us from getting back to a normal life.
In a recent newspaper interview, pastor Kyle Penner suggested using friendship and positivity to convince folks who are vaccine- hesitant to change their mind. I agree. But if social media comments are any indication there are still many people who aren’t just vaccine- hesitant they are adamant their families won’t ever be vaccinated for COVID-19. How do I accept that without getting angry?
Luckily I have some experience to fall back on. Decades ago when I had my first child, I was angry at the school division I worked for because they didn’t have extended maternity leave benefits like other jurisdictions. I was angry local churches didn’t recognize the leadership gifts of women and that few women held political office or higher executive positions in my area. I was angry inclusive language wasn’t standard in my local newspaper or my church constitution. I learned from that experience being angry didn’t do much good.
Instead, I had to try and accept there were many in my hometown who didn’t believe women were equal to men or deserving of the same opportunities and recognition. I had to try and understand people’s fear of change because I realized they were convinced women’s equality would negatively impact the way their families and communities operated. I had to try and understand that their ideas were grounded in uncompromising religious beliefs. I had to learn people didn’t want to be forced by a law to treat women equally, that it threatened particularly men’s feelings of power and importance.
And so, instead of getting angry, and I will freely admit initially I did, I had to learn to accept people with differing views but at the same time try to be true to my own convictions in as non-confrontational and engaging a way as possible. So, I wrote about women’s contributions, challenges and rights in my newspaper column, in other publications and in the curriculums I was asked to author. I accepted invitations to speak in area churches about female leaders in the Bible even in churches that told me I couldn’t stand behind the pulpit because that was a spot reserved for men. I tried to be careful to always use inclusive language in my speaking, teaching and writing and I served on the teachers’ salary and benefits negotiating team engaging in a lengthy process to extend maternity leave.
I want to remember that experience when I’m angry at those who won’t accept the reality of the pandemic or the value and safety of vaccines. As people did at the start of the women’s movement many now feel their personal freedom, their religious beliefs and their ability to control societal change are being threatened. I have to accept that and be true to my own personal convictions in as non-confrontational a way as possible. I have to continue to engage with everyone.
At the beginning of the pandemic, I responded angrily to a social media post that refuted science. Someone called me out on my anger. I’m glad they did. I erased my comment, apologized, and have tried to be more circumspect. Anger can fuel change, but I think in the long run acceptance and engagement, and living your own truth as best you can, is healthiest and most effective.
In a sermon I gave last Sunday I talked about my visit to the St. Anne de Beaupre Church just outside of Quebec City. One of first things I noticed when I walked into the cathedral were these cases that stretched high up to the ceiling filled with crutches and canes and hearing aids and orthotic shoes. They were items people had left at the church after experiencing a miraculous healing there.
St. Anne de Beaupre is said to be the site of many divine healings. It began when the church was being constructed in 1658. One of its original builders had severe scoliosis and walked with a crutch. By the time the church building was complete he was able to walk independently. Countless similar miracles are said to have happened to cathedral visitors.
I do know healing can seem almost miraculous. My father was a physician, and he has told me stories of patients who recovered their health against all odds. But there can be a danger in the kind of belief in supernatural divine healing like people think has happened to them at Saint Anne’s.
Trusting in divine healing can prevent people from seeking the professional medical help they need. It can also have them put off taking the steps they should to be healthy, like quitting smoking, getting a vaccine, or exercising.It can also leave people disillusioned and bitter when God doesn’t provide the hoped for outcome.
This is not to say however that believing God is walking with you through a health crisis isn’t important. Research has shown that health outcomes can be impacted by a belief in the divine. Apparently people of faith are less stressed and anxious about their illnesses and are generally more hopeful about a positive outcome.
It seems that things work out best when medical science and religious faith walk hand in hand.
The Sex Selective Abortion Act- Bill C-233 is currently being debated in Parliament. It was introduced by Conservative MP Cathy Wagantall. She wants to protect female babies from being aborted because of their gender. If the bill passes doctors would be criminally charged for knowingly performing sex selective abortions. Polling shows most Canadians think sex selective abortion is unethical. I do too. But I don’t support the passage of Bill C-233. Here’s why.
Bill C-233 would do nothing to curb sex selective abortion. Women don’t have to tell their doctor why they want an abortion and if this bill passed they would be even more cautious about disclosing the fact their unborn child’s gender influenced their abortion decision. Doctors worried about criminal charges would hesitate to press patients for too much information about their abortion request.
Of course, decades of research has shown that making abortion illegal in a country does not cause a significant drop in the abortion rate. A recent Guttmacher Institute study found abortion rates are actually four times higher in low- income countries where abortion is prohibited than in high income countries where it is legal. If Bill C-233 passed it would do nothing to lower the already declining abortion rate in Canada.
Secondly, twelve weeks gestation is the earliest the gender of an unborn child can be reliably determined. 90% of abortions in Canada take place before twelve weeks. Clearly Bill C-233 is narrow and would do little to impact the larger issue Ms. Wagantall would really like to see addressed.
Thirdly, based on the data I could find, sex selective abortions happen primarily in new immigrant families because people have brought ideas about gender preference to Canada from their home countries. Rather than wasting time championing ineffective legislation, perhaps we should focus our efforts on better educating expectant parents from immigrant communities about the opportunities available to their unborn daughters in Canada. Research shows sex selective abortions all but disappear in second and third generation immigrant families.
In China sex selective abortion has created a gender imbalance that has resulted in major societal problems. Chinese families think a male child will be able to support them better in their old age and will bring more prestige to the family name.
Banning sex selective abortions in China has proved ineffective at stopping them, but what has helped is increasing employment opportunities for women. In areas where a concentrated plan of affirmative action and greater pay equity has been implemented in industry and business spheres, sex selective abortions have been substantially reduced. When parents know their female children have an equal opportunity to support them financially and bring recognition to their family they don’t feel the need for sex selective abortions.
I don’t know if Ms. Wagantall has been a passionate supporter of affirmative action and equal pay for women, but those might be areas where she could more productively focus her energies. We know economic and career concerns are reasons women often have abortions, so let’s do what we can to make sure women have every advantage.
Finally, I don’t support Bill C-233 because it contradicts the platform of the Conservative Party of which Ms. Wagantall is a member. That makes me wonder if she has proposed the bill primarily for political reasons to bolster the profile of a certain wing of her party. Conservative leader Erin O Toole has assured Canadians his party will not reopen the abortion debate. Yet here is a member of his party doing exactly that.
It is sad sex selective abortions happen in Canada. There are constructive things we can do to address the problem. Passing Bill C-233 isn’t one of them.
“Would you want one of your children to be a doctor?” That was a question I asked Jillian Horton last night when I attended the Winnipeg Free Press online book club. We were talking about Jillian’s book We Are All Perfectly Fine. It tells the story of Jillian’s medical career and raises serious questions about the demands we make on doctors.
In her book we read about how Jillian attended a retreat for doctors in New York, at a point in her career when she was feeling really burned out. Over the course of the retreat, Jillian along with the other doctors in attendance, opened up about the guilt and grief and fear they felt about not always meeting their patients’ needs and not always meeting their own expectations of themselves.
Dr. Horton who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Manitoba says the current medical system fails doctors. Doctors need to experience compassion just like everyone else and they must take care of themselves if they want to be effective in helping their patients. Being a doctor is an emotional job and doctors need to be able to face those emotions and deal with them. Of course the pandemic has only exacerbated the emotional stress on doctors.
So given all the problems and challenges Jillian sees in the medical profession I wondered if she would want one of her sons to be a doctor.
She told me many doctors discourage their children from entering the profession. She wouldn’t necessarily do that but she would want to be very sure her child was passionate and committed to the field of medicine and she would certainly warn them about the pitfalls and perils of the profession.
I grew up the child of a rural family doctor and the demands on my Dad were incredible. He was on call seven days a week. Often we didn’t see him for days. He was off to the hospital to do surgery before we woke up in the morning, frequently missed supper because his office hours ran late and he got up during the night to make house calls. The only place we knew Dad wouldn’t get called away because of a medical emergency was at our cottage at Moose Lake because there wasn’t a phone there.
I think watching how hard my Dad worked and the sacrifices he had to make in regards to our family life in order to fulfill his professional commitments probably influenced his four children in making the decision not to become doctors. I know Dad was highly respected and appreciated as a physician. At least on the surface he seemed to deal with the emotional aspects of the job, but it definitely impacted our family’s life.
I found Dr. Jillian Horton’s book interesting and eye-opening. I think those who read it will come to a greater understanding of the stresses faced by physicians and their families and will gain a greater appreciation for the work they do.
Note: Last night Jillian referred to a piece she wrote in the Los Angeles Times about how actor Alan Alda and the series MASH taught her the value of humour in medical practice. It is well worth the read.
In a recent e-mail my Aunt Mary recalled the time in the early 1950s when she was training to be a nurse at the Misercordia Hospital in Winnipeg. A call for volunteer nurses went out from the King George Community Hospital where most of the city’s polio patients were in care. My aunt said the patients in iron lungs needed to be under vigilant survelience due to the need for frequent tracheostomy suctioning. The director of the nursing school at the Misercordia encouraged her students to volunteer at King George during the hours they weren’t on call at the Misercorida.
My aunt volunteered and was assigned to two young men, both from the area of southern Manitoba where she had been born and raised. The men were from a Mennonite background, as was my aunt, and so sometimes she spoke their common cultural language Low German with them, which she recalls often helped to lighten the mood of their serious situation.
My aunt says that Ted Braun, one of the men she cared for was engaged to be married, and his worried finance was a frequent visitor. She remembers how deeply appreciative the two men were of her care for them. My aunt’s memories of her time at the King George Hospital were triggered by a recent article in the Canadian Mennonite magazine written by Will Braun who was a nephew of Ted’s.
I was curious about the King George Hospital where my aunt had volunteered but learned it had been torn down and was now the site of the Riverview Health Centre. My husband Dave and I decided to visit the site on our bicycles and discovered that the front archway of the old King George Hospital has been preserved on the site.
There was a fence around the archway so we weren’t able to get too close .
Dave managed to get shots of one of the plaques with his zoom lens and it told the story of the King George Hospital built in 1914. It was considered one of the best and most modern hospitals in the world for treating patients with communicable diseases like the Spanish flu and polio.
The old King George Hospital was torn down in 1999 to make room for a new addition to the Riverview Health Complex. I am glad they kept the archway as a reminder of the important role the former hospital played in the fight against polio. For many Manitobans, their families and the medical staff that cared for them the King George Hospital was the site of life-changing events.It will still have a special place in their hearts and minds as it does for my Aunt Mary.
The two kingdoms in the title of Between Two Kingdoms – A Memoir of a Life Interruptedare the kingdoms of the living and the dead. Author Suleika Jaouad continues to walk the fine line between those two kingdoms because at age 22 she was diagnosed with cancer. During her ensuing three years of treatments that included chemotherapy, radiation and a bone marrow transplant Suleika contributed a column about her experiences to the New York Times.
Many people wrote to her after reading her column, and once her cancer was in remission she set out on a road trip to visit some of them. She chose people who had dealt with cancer or some other life-altering event and hoped she could glean wisdom from them about how to live her life between the two kingdoms- a place where she feels we all live to some extent, but a place that is particularly difficult to navigate for people who have stared death in the face.
The last eight chapters of the book chronicle Suleika’s road trip and are very engaging. She meets such interesting people. Ned is a poet and English teacher at a posh girl’s boarding school. Erin is a survivalist who is preparing for the end of the world with her family. Katherine is dealing with the grief over her son’s suicide as well as her own cancer diagnosis. JR and Kit live close to the earth and spend their time exploring their talents and passions. Lil’ GQ is an inmate on death row. These people as well as many others Suleika meets, each teach her something about life between the two kingdoms.
While the last third of the book is fascinating the first two-thirds is a heavy read as Suleika chronicles her cancer diagnosis and treatment in agonizing detail and we discover how it impacted her relationships and career and day to day existence. I had to give myself generous breaks while reading.
I saw an interview with author Suleika Jaouad on Sunday Morning on CBS and that’s what got me interested in the book. Suleika’s long time partner is Jon Baptiste, a musician I have enjoyed watching on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Prior to the pandemic, Jon appeared every night on the talk show as the leader of the in-house band Stay Human.
We all walk the line between the kingdom of our present life and the kingdom of our inevitable death. Between Two Kingdoms offers insight into how to do that in the best way we can.
This T-shirt was one of the gifts I put into my eight-year-old grandson’s Christmas stocking.
As the T-shirt says, although science seems like magic because of the miraculous things it helps us to discover…… SCIENCE IS REAL.
So why is it some people don’t think science is real? Why don’t they believe in science or trust scientists?We have seen evidence of that during the pandemic when some political leaders and some members of the general public refuse to accept the validity of what scientists are telling them. They still refuse to believe that COVID-19 is dangerous. They refuse to stay at home, refuse to wear a mask, some even refuse a vaccination. They just don’t believe that scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying virusesmight know more than they do.
I decided to do some research to find out why some people are so skeptical of science. I found out that………..
Education makes a difference. The more people know about science and scientists the more they tend to believe them. A Pew Research project found that the higher your level of education the more likely you are to have faith in science.
Politics makes a difference. The more conservative your political views the less likely you are to believe scientific truths. In the United States, for example, 54% of Democrats are confident scientists and their findings should be used as tools when determining public policy. Only 31% of Republicans feel that way.
Religious beliefs make a difference. A major research study published in 2018 found that the more religious you are the more likely you are to have a negative attitude towards science and a lower level of scientific literacy.
Social Media use makes a difference. Before the rise of the internet, our information came from scientific experts interviewed on mainstream media or we looked in an encyclopedia for what scientific experts had written. Now the internet allows anyone to publish incorrect scientific information and anyone in the world can read it. Having so many unqualified scientists providing incorrect scientific information damages people’s trust in science.
So what do we need to do to increase the public trust in scientists and science?
Encourage and support quality science instruction in our schools and universities and make the study of science mandatory.
Take science off the ballotby having all political parties support scientific endeavors.
Promote the idea that science and faith can exist in harmony. Faith leaders and institutions have a big role to play in this.
Regulate and fact- check the scientific information on the internet.
It was heartening to learn as I looked for reasons why some people don’t trust science, to find that research shows every year more and more people say they DO trust science and believe science and scientists benefit society.