Murderers, Tyrants and Madmen.

I have been reading "Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming." (Book review coming soon on my reading blog).  In this book Oreskes and Conway trace some of the scariest science denying trends in recent decades and expose the links to political ideology.

Some of the politically motivated organizations who are frequently found trying to refute widely accepted scientific theories are identified in "Merchants of Doubt".  One of the most prominent is the Heartland Institute.  It has the impressive record of using all its might to deny the dangers of second hand smoke, among other things.  Unsurprisingly, given it's free market MO, it also denies anthropogenic climate change and uses it might to try and cast doubt on this.

If you start with the premise that regulation by governments is wrong then you may be predisposed to overlook evidence that certain activities, promoted in our free market, are actually harmful.  And of course you will be set on a path of denying that one of the obvious and effective ways to curtail the harm is through regulation.

After reading about The Heartland Institute, in The Merchants of Doubt, I was interested to come across this billboard that was recently put but by The Heartland Institute. 

Here is a snippet from the Heartland Institute's web site that was issued with the unveiling of the billboard on 3rd May.

“The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists,” said Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast. “They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).  http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/05/03/do-you-still-believe-global-warming-billboards-hit-chicago

Umm, what??

I have come across a lot of advocates of global warming in recent years; in the media, in books and on-line.  And I can honestly say that Manson, Castro, Kaczynski, bin Laden and Lee have never been prominent, or even referred to!

The public backlash to this offensive billboard caused them to pull the billboard after only 24 hours.  They issued a statement that you can read here on their website.  Did they apologise for their shocking tactics?  Read for yourself:

"We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”

I like this video response by Peter Sinclair, to Bast's murderers, tyrants and madmen claim.

Peter Sinclair’s monthly Yale Forum video uses historical footage to debunk an assertion that the most well-known climate change ‘advocates’ are … ‘murderers, tyrants, and madmen.’  http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/05/margaret-thatcher-others-neither-murderers-tyrants-nor-madmen/

Some interesting footage from the 80's and 90's.  You know, around the time that that anthropogenic climate change became almost universally* accepted amongst climate scientists, despite what the mainstream media, climate damaging industry and right wing capitalists would have you believe.


* Some sources re: Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html

CHOGM Special Powers Act 2011

I just found out that there is a Special Powers Act that has been passed in aid of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that is being held here in Perth.

As part of the Special Powers the tough guys at the top have compiled an "Excluded Persons List".  Hmmm, maybe they should leave the list making to Father Christmas!

These people have received notice that they are not to enter any of the CHOGM restricted areas.  And that is a lot of areas.

Below is a link to a couple of news articles about this and a copy of the letter that these people have received.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/10834043/dozens-hit-with-chogm-bans/

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/10834043/dozens-hit-with-chogm-bans/

A Victorian Hangman Tells His Love

I don't often feel proud to be Australian.  But this week I have had reason to.  

The last time the Australian state sanctioned the killing of one of it's citizens was in 1967*.  Sure our human rights record is pretty atrocious in so many other areas, but at least we have this one sorted.  Not so America, as we have unfortunately witnessed this week.  

Image copied from here.

It feels like "unfortunately" is far too soft and common a word to describe the murder of Troy Davis by the State of Georgia.

As I have been thinking about this issue I remembered this poem by Bruce Dawe.  I remember how it chilled me when I first read it as a naive 16 year old.  And it still chills me now.

A Victorian Hangman Tells His Love**

Dear one, forgive my appearing before you like this,
in a two-piece tracksuit, welder’s goggles
and a green cloth cap like some gross bee – this is the State’s idea…
I would have come
arrayed like a bridegroom for these nuptials
knowing how often you have dreamed about this
moment of consummation in your cell.
If I must bind your arms now to your sides
with a leather strap and ask if you have anything to say
– these too are formalities I would dispense with:
I know your heart is too full at this moment
to say much and that the tranquilliser which I trust
you did not reject out of a stubborn pride
should by this have eased your ache for speech, breath
and the other incidentals which distract us from our end.
Let us now walk a step. This noose
with which we’re wed is something of an heirloom, the last three
members of our holy family were wed with it, the softwood beam
it hangs from like a lover’s tree notched with their weight.
See now I slip it over your neck, the knot
under the left jaw, with a slip ring
to hold the knot in place… There. Perfect.
Allow me to adjust the canvas hood
which will enable you to anticipate the officially prescribed darkness
by some seconds.
The journalists are ready with the flash-bulbs of their eyes
raised to the simple altar, the doctor twitches like a stethoscope
– you have been given a clean bill of health, like any
modern bride.
With this spring of mine
from the trap, hitting the door lever, you will go forth
into a new life which I, alas, am not yet fit to share.
Be assured, you will sink into the generous pool of public feeling
as gently as a leaf – accept your rôle, feel chosen.
You are this evening’s headlines. Come, my love.

The poem is about the hanging of Ronald Ryan.  He was the last victim of capital punishment in Australia.   I have lifted the poem from here .  It is a lecture given by Bruce Dawe.  In discussing his poem he says:

"Manners, conventions, customs are means by which the state seeks, at times, to legitimize the illegitimate."

The lecture was given in  2008 but these words apply perfectly to the State of Georgia.  They have tried to legitimize the illegitimate.  Moral discussions about capital punishment cannot center around issues of innocence and guilt.  If the taking of a life is unlawful for the citizens, how can it not be unlawful for the state?

 *Capital punishment was not abolished in Australia until many years later but no death sentences were carried out after 1967. 

** I have reproduced the poem in a font called "Georgia".

No More Drug Lunches for Me.

It has been two months since my last Drug Lunch.

That statement may require some explaining. By "Drug" I mean Pharmaceutical Company, and by "Lunch" I mean any gift (edible or otherwise).

What is a Drug Lunch?

Pharmaceutical sales reps regularly visit doctors and they generally bring food.  Over lunch they chat about the products of their company.  They offer sample boxes of medications (to give to patients of course) and "trinkets" such as measuring tapes, boxes of tongue depressors and patient education booklets, all blazoned with the company's logo and feature products.

Pharmaceutical companies also run "educational" events such as dinner meetings with a local specialist as the speaker, and more elaborate weekend conferences with international guest speakers covering a range of medical topics.  For example a company promoting a new antidepressant medication may organise for a local psychiatrist to give a talk on the treatment of depression to up-skill GPs.

This is pretty tame compared to the all expenses paid weekends away to golf resorts for doctors and their partners that used to be on offer.  In Australia the marketing strategies of pharmaceutical companies have come under scrutiny and regulation since the 1960's and now any perks offered have to be directly related to educational content.  Pharmaceutical companies also have to be able to justify how much they spend on meals - so the fine wining and dining has mostly been replaced by more modest meals.

In practice, for me, that meant free sandwiches or sushi for lunch on a pretty regular basis, with cake for dessert on a good day, and a bunch of stuff in my office with pharmaceutical company logos and products on it.

For more info on the current regulations/guidelines click here: Medicines Australia - Code of Conduct 

The Challenge:

I had a little about the potential conflict of interest but had been procrastinating on doing anything about it.  The kick that I needed to finally do some thing about this came from a facebook discussion of all places!  Someone posted a response on a friend's status update, their comment included the following:

"It is time to remove the title of doctor from people because the Medical profession is all about money. Research is not for cures, only repetitive medications for ongoing profit. Disband the AMA then we can fund health appropriately. " 

Silly me waded into the discussion - defending doctors and our prescribing patterns.  Here is a snippet:

"I also won't dispute with you that big pharma is about profit, I would go further and say that big pharma is corrupt to it's core, but pardon me if I still chose to judiciously prescribe their products in the best interests of my patients."

The person responded politely and then posed the following question:

"Do any Doctor's receive any benefits from prescribing particular brands/products including business trips etc.? "

The simplistic answer is no.  Doctors' do not receive incentives for prescribing particular products.  But the question got me thinking.  And reading.  And the more I thought and the more I read the more it became obvious that my interactions with pharmaceutical companies were probably compromising my professional integrity and ability to practice unbiased medicine.

It is insidious, not innocuous:

Nearly all doctors I know interact with pharmaceutical companies sometimes.  And most of the doctors that I have talked to feel that they do not allow pharmaceutical company information to affect their prescribing habits.  This is what I used to think too.  But the research disagrees.  You can find links to articles dealing with this topic on the No Free Lunch site.  Here is one example:

"These alterations in prescribing patterns occurred even though the majority of physicians who attended the symposia believed that such enticements would not alter their prescribing patterns."  - Wateska L, Orlowski JP "The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns.  There's no such thing as a free lunch."  Published in Chest, 1992 Jul;102 (1):270-3.  Abstract available here.

It must seem pretty arrogant (of just stupid) of me to have thought that I was not affected.  But to be honest, most of the time I just did not think about the implications of these interactions.  Which I am sure is just how the pharmaceutical companies want it.
 The bottom line is that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't bother if it didn't work!

Once I started to actually think about the issue the ethical decision became crystal clear.

My pledge:

I will accept no gift, however large or small, edible or inedible, from a pharmaceutical company.  I will accept no information, education or training from a pharmaceutical company, no matter how reliable or prestigious the invited speakers may seem.

The Response:

I wondered how my decision would be received at work.  I suspected that my colleagues would think I was strange, or being over the top.  (Hmm, maybe they already think that!)  But actually my decision has been received very positively. 

More Info:

If you would like more information on this issue you could check out the following organizations:

No Free Lunch

I came across this web site pretty quickly when I started googling info on doctors and pharmaceutical companies.  The organisation was started in America by health professionals concerned about the influence that pharmaceutical companies have over the health industry.

No Free Lunch encourages doctors to take the pledge reproduced below, and to let their patients know about it.   The organization maintains a list of health professionals in the US who have signed on.

"I, __________________, am committed to practicing medicine in the best interest of my patients and on the basis of the best available evidence, rather than on the basis of advertising or promotion.   

I therefore pledge to accept no money, gifts, or hospitality from the pharmaceutical industry; to seek unbiased sources of information and not rely on information disseminated by drug companies; and to avoid conflicts of interest in my practice, teaching, and/or research." 

 - copied from No Free Lunch.

Healthy Skepticism

I asked a friend if there was a similar organisation in Australia and he pointed me in the direction of Healthy Skepticism.  (He is doing some research into this area and must have wondered why it took me so long to reach the decision to boycott drug lunches.)

Healthy Skepticism was started in 1983 in Adelaide Australia, but has members from around the world.  From the web site:

"Healthy Skepticism is an independent, international, not for profit organisation for people with an interest in improving health. We aim to improve health by reducing harm from misleading drug promotion.

 - from The Identity Statement of Healthy Skepticism

Healthy Skepticism is in the process of merging with No Free Lunch.  Strength in numbers!

Doctors Reform Society

The DRS was formed in 1973 in Australia, specifically to support the introduction of Medicare, which was opposed by the Australian Medical Association at the time.  The DRS has much broader interests than just the issue of pharmaceutical marketing but I think it is relevant to this discussion. 

From the DRS website:

The DRS functions as a medico-political think tank, a lobby group and a public resource centre.
It is not affiliated to any political party, receives no corporate funding, and relies financially on subscriptions and donations.
The DRS will speak out against any political party, organisation or individual that threatens public health care.

- copied from the About Us section of the DRS website.

So, where am I at now?

• I have not attended a "Drug Lunch" in the last 2 months
• I have become a member of Healthy Skepticism.  
• I plan to attend the August meeting of the Perth branch of the DRS.  
• I have not finished removing all the Pharmaceutical paraphernalia from my consulting room but I am getting there. 
• I am looking at educational events that are not sponsored by any pharmaceutical companies.  This means I will have to pay to attend them but at least my conscience, and hopefully my clinical judgement, will be clearer.

Swiss Suffrage Shock

I was sitting in my politics lecture this week busily taking notes and being impressed by Swiss style democracy.  Switzerland is the closest example we have of direct democracy in modern society.

On average there are 7 referendums per year in Switzerland.  Major policy decisions and all changes to the constitution are decided via referendums.   The reliance on referendums dates back to 1848.  It has led to a very stable government and, contrary to what you might initially think, is a very efficient and progressive system.  For example the referendums have led to approving legislation regarding carbon taxation and recognition of same-sex partnerships .  Voting in referendums is not compulsory and voters tend to be well informed.  As opposed to what we see in modern representative democracies - politicians are part-timers without huge media prestige. 

However, just as I was thinking yay

for the Swiss, the lecture said:

"Switzerland did not grant women the vote until 1971"

I said:  "Gasp"

I mean I actually, literally, audibly gasped. 

And a number of swivel necked and primarily female students turned to look at me.  They seemed nonplussed by the information and but apparently surprised by my shock.  It's not that these students are mute.  They can raise a decent "murmur" when something piques their interest.

Why did these other students seem unsurprised by what the lecture had said but so shocked by my gasp? I have a few theories:

1. They already knew about this appalling example of the abuse of women's rights and were surprised that I did not already know this.  How could any self respecting female politics student not know this?

2. They were not actually listening to the lecture as they were too busy robotically taking notes.  Of course when they read over these notes as part of their exam preparation their shocked gasp will bring their parents or other house mates running to see what the matter is.

3. They are all so terribly young that 1971 sounds like such a long time ago.  Any time in history that predates the internet and Twilight must have been so horribly primitive that they are surprised anyone had the vote, let alone women.  Of course for someone born just 3 years after 1971 it seems unspeakably outrageous that the women's suffrage movement in Switzerland had to fight so long for this basic sign of respect.

4. They just didn't care.  They have been born into a time and place where their rights as women to vote, get an education and pursue any career of their choice are unquestioned.  Unfortunately these rights are now taken for granted, and consequently are undervalued.

I find it quite astounding and disturbing that Switzerland took so long to grant women the vote.  And I wonder long would it have taken for women to achieve the right to vote in Australia if the issue was decided by a referendum amongst male voters? 

For a time line of women's suffrage in Switzerland:

Women's Right to Vote In Switzerland

As a comparison, here is a link to the a time line of when the vote was granted to women by country:

Time Line of International Women's Suffrage

I have picked out a few examples from the timeline in case you can't be bothered perusing the whole list:

1893 - New Zealand

1902 - Australia

1906 - Finland

1917 - Canada

1918 - UK, Germany, Russia, Ireland,

1920 - US

1924 - Mongolia

1930 - South Africa - Whites only of course

1944 - France

1945 - Italy, Japan, Indonesia

1948 - Israel

1949 - China

1963 - Afganistan, Iran,

1971 - Switzerland

1994 - South Africa - blacks

Perpetual Perks

Here in NZ we are in the middle of our own mini-mini-mini parliamentary members' allowances scandal. While there are no shocks of UK proportion (there are not many moats in NZ that require cleaning I guess), there has been enough to keep the media happy for a few days.

The most interesting thing I heard from the radio show talk fest was the ongoing cost of ex-prime ministers to the Australian tax payers. (Kiwis do love to reference Australia when discussing their internal affairs). I had no idea that ex-prime ministers where eligible for such big bucks for the rest of their lives and was quite surprised to hear the figures, but apparently this information is available through Freedom of Information. The Herald Sun ran the article this week.

	John Howard's $1m splash on us JOHN Howard is costing taxpayers more in retirement than he did while running the country.

"Australia's five living former prime ministers submitted expenses tallying almost $3 million last year, the figures show."

The costs relate to running the offices of these fellows. Obviously they can't be expected to work from home like many other private individuals do, or fund the expenses of their offices themselves I suppose!

Yes I know that in the overall picture of the Australian tax-payers' budget this is a minuscule amount. But it seems to me that this is an extravagant, if not unwarranted, perk for those who have formerly been PM. Even if I could stretch my mind to think that our ex-prime ministers deserve some kind of pension, surely it should be a little more modest. Say, half the salary of the current prime minister at most. After all, I am working from the assumption that these men went into politics for the love not the money. Even if some may suspect that love to be of power rather than their country.

What do you think? Should receive ongoing financial support once they no longer work for the country? If so, what would be a reasonable sum to be available to them and should it be a life-long entitlement?

Well, given this ongoing cost, I don't think too many tax-paying Aussies will be wishing John Howard a long life - if they ever were!

Power Politics

I have just finished reading "Power Politics" by Arundhati Roy.

It is a a collection of her excellent political essays and is definitely worth reading. She is obviously very passionate about advocating for the disadvantaged and taken-advantaged-of masses, not just of India but of the world. I have included links to some of the essays in case you want to read the whole thing - they are not too long and are easy reading.

"Power Politics: The Reincarnation of Rumpelstiltskin" is a thought provoking critique of the insatiable beast of globalization.

"The Algebra of Infinite Injustice" is a biting but fair attack on the foreign policy of that other insatiable beast, the USA. While Roy clearly puts the blame on the rich and powerful puppet masters, she does not completely exonerate the "average American" and drops a few of her poetic bombs their way. My favorite example:

"Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't know (because they don't appear much on TV)."

To make sure you get her point, she prefaces it perfectly with a very telling quote from a newscaster on Fox News, September 17th 2001:
"Good and Evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don't know, massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee." Apparently the newscaster then broke down and cried.

And in "War is Peace"*, referring to the government rhetoric/spin doled out via the mainstream media as medication she has this to say:
"Regular medication ensures that mainland America continues to remain the enigma it has always been -- a curiously insular people, administered by a pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous government."

While I would love to fully enjoy a virtuous and contemptuous snicker at the expense of these "curiously insular people", I am also acutely aware that I too am curiously insular and that just occasionally reading about injustice is not the same as opposing it.

* Interestingly "War is Peace" apparently had a different, and delightfully more provocative title originally: "Brutality Smeared in Peanut Butter. Why America Must Stop the War Now."

The Story of Stuff

Have you seen this? If not you can download it here.

It's beauty lies in being a simple, succinct, introductory overview to a wide range of linked topics.

I think it would be a great idea to show it to all school students. Unfortunately one teacher who had this idea was soon having to defend herself to the school board. But hopefully not all school boards would be quite so narrow minded in their response.

Rantings against the "War on Drugs"

Prohibition is one of my pet peeves. While driving home today (after running the 12km City to Surf) I listened to a radio program about prohibition. And as usual the topic got me feeling very cross!

Prohibition does not work - that's a fact. The "War on drugs" is grounded in ignorance, racism, and political grandstanding.

While I certainly don't want to advocate for easy access to "hard" drugs, I do believe that a society that has legal access to alcohol and tobacco and yet criminalizes cannabis users is grossly hypocritical. We have decided that turning 18 years old makes one an adult with respect to alcohol, tobacco, voting and armed service, and you can get a license to drive a lethal weapon even younger than this. To me it seems enormously sensible to add recreational use of drugs to this list - particularly ones that, going by the vast evidence, are less detrimental to health than tobacco, and less detrimental socially than alcohol.

Instead of pouring insane amounts of money into enforcing irrational laws our governments could focus on education, harm minimization, health services, addictions counseling and research.

If your loved one (son, daughter, partner) was suffering negative consequences due to their drug use would you want them dealt with by the justice system with the possibility of a criminal record, gaol time, stigma and job loss, or dealt with by health professionals and educators that could help them get back on track?

We need some credible people, including politicians, law enforcers and health professionals, to push against our prohibition laws. I say "credible" because I think that we particularly need people who do not have a vested interest due to personal use to take up the cause. Of course I am not saying that recreational drug users are any less "credible" because of their use, but unfortunately anyone with any position or power who takes up this cause will be heavily scrutinized by our vulture-like main stream media.

Fortunately there does seem to be an increasing voice against prohibition in main stream media. The radio program I listened to this morning referenced a recent article in the The Economist. The subtitle of the article is: "Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution". Hopefully we will see more reporting like this.

It seems to me that the one of the main obstructions to law reform is that the people who have a responsibility to govern our country are more concerned about risking political suicide than advocating for what may be best for our society. But, considering that climate change finally made into onto the political agenda (perhaps 30 years too late!), perhaps prohibition law reform will eventually become politically attractive too.

NZ Election Synopsis (Ranting from someone who knows very little about Politics.)

A friend (a kiwi living in Aus - like so many other kiwis) asked me on Saturday:

"How's the election going - the kiwi one I mean."

As I have a bit of a lazy streak, here is the answer I wrote on Sunday, cut and pasted (saves me writing it again)

"Sorry didn't see your question till just now. Guess you've heard the outcome, but here is my synopsis anyway: NZ has voted for "change" so we now have a National gov. They didn't get my vote, a little right for my liking, but Key seems like a fairly earnest, reasonable and intelligent guy so hopefully he will prove himself to be a worthy leader and not take us too far to the right. What has ticked me off is that they have formed government with the ACT party - a rather right, red necked, narrow-minded, thoroughly stupid party whose main platform was "Zero-tolerance for crime". Also they don't seem to believe in global warming. Their other main election platform was "our country can't afford to support Kyoto*". Gave me a sense of foreboding when I heard that Key was forming his gov with them, esp as the Greens had indicated they would aim to work with whoever formed gov. One good thing - Winston Peters is out!! He lost his seat and his party NZ First did not reach the 5% threshold."

"PS - MMP is an interesting system. Does it adequately balance out the other kiwi political quirk of only having one house? Maybe. Also, apparently Key is "willing to talk" to the Maori party too, so maybe the ACT party will get shafted - that would certainly elevate Key and his party in my opinion."

So how has John Key taken to his new position since then? I have been proven naive (again) by daring to hope that he might draw in the Maori party and leave ACT with their ridiculous policies high and dry (hmmm, which is quite opposite to what many of our descendants will be if all world leaders take ACT's approach to global warming).

So now we will wait and see just how centre John Key's "centre right" government is going to be. Not very centre if ACT gets there way and unfortunately I don't think that the emmisions trading scheme is going to be a deal breaker between ACT and national. Interesting that a party that shouts long and hard for reduced government spending wants to spend million more dollars incarcerating people and keeping them there for life.

I received an email from a friend yesterday (different friend, proving I have more than one) who asked me, undoubtedly with tongue in cheek:

"Well, now that NZ has moved to the right, and Australia has got rid of the Liberal Party, is it time to move back home?"

Hmm.


* That should have read "emissions trading scheme" but you get the picture)