Letters: Apr 17/14

Apr 16, 2014

Flaherty good friend to disabled people

I am disabled. This past Thursday, I lost a good friend when Jim Flaherty passed away. Because of Mr. Flaherty's family circumstances, he was sensitive to persons with disabilities and had done much to help us; "Us", being over 3.5 million Canadians living with disabilities.

Because of Mr. Flaherty, the Registered Disability Savings Plan will significantly help us in our later years. It will mean many of us will not live in poverty.

Because of Mr. Flaherty, the Enabling Accessibility Fund will help us get better jobs and feel that we are more of a part of Canadian society. Many of us who are able to work are stuck in low-paying, menial jobs and this fund will help break that cycle.

Because of Mr. Flaherty the Special Olympics are thriving and this cannot be under estimated in helping us build self-esteem.

But, Mr. Flaherty could not have done this on his own. He always had the support of Prime Minister Harper. I see negative letters-to-the-editor in the Frontenac News that always blindly criticize Mr. Harper and never take into consideration the good things he does. The fact is that under Mr. Harper's government, more has been done to help disabled people than has been done before.

I know of what I say. Because I live every day with it.

Stephen McDonald

Re: Harper’s Fair Elections Act

Overall, I think Harper has two purposes for the Fair Elections Act. First to punish Canada's Chief Electoral Officer for finding and pursuing the election frauds committed by the Conservative Party, and to make certain that Canada's Electoral Office would not be able to investigate future election frauds.

The second purpose shows that he is really worried about Justin Trudeau in the 2015 election. Many young voters and marginalized voters may vote for Trudeau, so the easiest way to counteract this threat is to make it more difficult for these folks to vote. Hence, do away with vouching and increase the number and type of identification needed to vote.

All in all, pretty much like the Tea Party wing of the American Republican Party.

Norm Hart

Re: Picadilly Hall Closure

I was shocked to read in the Feb. 27 edition of the Frontenac News that the Central Frontenac Township council had voted to close Piccadilly Hall. I did not know that the hall was a financial burden to the township nor was I aware of any public meeting for residents of the community to discuss the future of their hall. Their hall, according to the article in the Frontenac News, is the only community hall in the former Hinchinbrooke Township and as such is one of a few community symbols left.

The community, although small, is alive and well and needs to have tangible evidence that it is recognized and appreciated by the Central Frontenac Township council. Feelings of abandonment have existed since amalgamation and this apparent action adds to that feeling. If this anticipated action is completed, local community residents will be forced to rent facilities from neighbouring South Frontenac Township. It doesn't seem right that we would pay taxes in our township and get needed services from an adjacent township.

An added problem is the provision of fire prevention services. The sale of the hall property, it seems, would include the fire hall. Would we then have to purchase property and build a new fire hall like the ones provided for the rest of the township? No savings here.

I have not been made aware of the cost of operation comparison for all the halls; however, the costs must be minimal when compared to the total township expenses.

It seems, to me, that more is to be gained by keeping the facility rather than closing it.

First, the hall is in excellent shape with new kitchen and washroom facilities, excellent parking, and has unsurpassed location at one of the busiest road intersections. Its accessibility is top notch.

The hall, as mentioned before, is a symbol of the community in the Piccadilly area. People are proud of the hall and the service it provides. It seems, to me, that community support for council in these difficult times is more important than the feeling of alienation and abandonment that residents will feel from the hall's closure.

Wouldn't a positive "spin" on the situation be to keep it open and name it "Bill Snyder Memorial Hall" in memory of the long serving township councillor who worked hard to promote the community and the township? The community would feel accepted and appreciated by Council.

Please create a situation for celebration rather than one for alienation and abandonment.

Dwayne Peters

Re: Euthenasia

I was surprised by the wording in the Jule Koch's April 3 letter (Euthenasia, April 3/14) regarding the end-of-life assistance movement. The writer’s choice of inflammatory words and suggestions such as “killing (execute) sick and depressed people, it’s really all about money, killing suffering people is the cheapest option, get rid of them so we can get on with our lives, murdering them” paints a very dark and distorted view of society ...certainly one that I suspect most people don’t share. As the dying Dr. Donald Lowe recently said “The reality is that modern science gives us the ability to provide dying and suffering patients a peaceful end to life...so why aren’t we offering them the choice? The focus of the proposals (which up to 80% of Canadians support) for a change in the current law is on individual CHOICE and CONSENT. The predictions of a doomsday “slippery slope” are imaginary if there is an appropriate process in place to ensure that the patient makes the  choice and clearly consents...rigorous processes which have been successfully implemented in 4 European countries and 5 states in the U.S. Currently, more Canadians (unfortunately only those who can afford it) are travelling all the way to Europe to receive medical assistance to avoid a painful and traumatic end to their lives. The 20%  who  do not support choice (including some physicians), do not have to have to be involved in the process...it is their personal choice for whatever reason. Patients themselves or other health care providers can also administer such assistance. While palliative care needs to be strengthened and made more accessible, it should also add to its current range of options, a “final option” which permits the patient to have the personal choice to consent to receiving modern medical assistance to have a peaceful end-of-life. To respond to J Koch’s question as to whether we have “an epidemic of sickness in 2014 so that we need to kill people” the answer is a simple “No”...but instead, since the 5th century BC Hippocratic Oath, as Dr Lowe states, we have made some extraordinary advances in medical science that permit end-of-life to be more peaceful and dignified. We are offering compassion and not “killing” people. The reality is that these end-of-life changes are happening around the world and in Canada as well. We should stop debating whether such assistance should be available and spend our time defining the process so that every individual patient has both the choice and the protection they deserve.

As for our elected representatives...I agree with J Koch that they should support palliative care... but expand its spectrum of care to include the right to choose to receive assistance to bring one’s life to a peaceful end.             

A great majority of Canadians support this view.

David Pattenden