Doctors and the CPSO - women growing older

According to the latest letter I have received from the CPSO, my case is now going under review, to see if they think it is worth taking to the committee or will be dismissed.  I have written many letters to them over the last year, responding to questions and letters from them with details about the doctor  - my family doctor, that I laid the complaint about.

Usually, when patients lay a complaint, it is because something of great magnitude has happened – a loved one has died while in their care, or there has been sexual abuse, or outrageous acts of unprofessional or negligent behaviour. I didn’t see my experience as any of those, at least not until the last official appointment with that family doctor, in April, a year ago.

Before then, I had approached a local organization, the London and District Academy of Medicine, LDAM, to help resolve problems I had had with the doctor in question, who had been my family doctor for about a year and a half. I had thought that, as a doctor opening a new practice, that it was stressful and needed time to adjust to, and so thought his attitude and ways of communicating, as well as organizational methods, etc, would improve over time. However, as time went on, I came to realize he wasn’t improving. In fact, his attitude and ways of conducting his practice were getting worse. Moreover, it was obvious he didn’t want me as a patient, in fact, he asked me to find a new doctor, something I was reluctant to do due to the difficulty in finding one in the first place. Surely, a doctor should be able to do his job, treating patients that come to him, without having personal biases interfere.

Recently, I have come to think that he was treating me as a walk-in patient, not as one of his registered patients. Having to go to his office every three months to have prescriptions renewed, by hand, not on the form, at the risk of errors being made, was just one example of that. Although the pharmacy provided a form that had the items on it to be checked off, he required me come in so he could do it by hand, which itself resulted in the occasional mistake and further consultations with the pharmacy, and another trip to the doctor to sort it out.

There came to be an accumulation of instances by him of unprofessionalism, including lack of attention to the details of making referrals, discussing reports, prescribing medications, demeaning comments, trivializing my health concerns and in general, offering a lack of quality time in assessing what treatment I needed - five minutes or so, but not enough. At the end of the my time with the doctor as his patient, however, I felt I had been subjected to more than what I should have had to put up with, and in a manner that was more than disrespectful. It was an attack on me as a human being - as a woman, an older person, and as a single person living in a separate city from other family members.

It was as though he had no time for me. And sometimes, it seemed as though some things that happened that were harmful to my health and sense of wellbeing were done on purpose. Possibly what happened to me was not any worse than how many long-term Canadian doctors are towards their ageing patients, at least the ones they see as being a burden on the system.

It was a year ago that I laid the complaint against my previous family doctor. CPSO stands for College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. For the most part the CPSO seems to be an organization for the benefit of the doctors, so having one’s complaint dealt with in a serious manner is no easy matter. I wrote on my blog almost a year ago about my first encounter with the ‘investigator’ at CPSO. See ‘CPSO complaints against Ontario doctors’. More recently, not having much faith left that the second assigned CPSO investigator was addressing my concerns objectively, and having come to see what happened in terms of discrimination and not only as bullying, abuse and lack of attention to the administrative aspects of his practice I decided to open a case of discrimination against the doctor with the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. See on my blog, ‘Health care among single, older women – a case of discrimination for OHRT’.

A while back I also founded a discussion list on Yahoo - Ageism in Canada's health care system. Anyone wishing to join would be welcome, to discuss issues of concern, whether for the young-old at home, or in hospital, or the old-old, in long term care homes.

The subject of health care among those growing older is so wide I decided to start with my own experience in this blog piece and see where it leads. Twenty-five years ago I studied ageing while at Western University (was UWO), and wrote several essays and research papers as well as conducting interviews with older people – mainly of close to retirement age, about their experiences and thoughts on the subject. Several of these are on my website – the Diversity in Retirement website.

I started my first website with a research essay about my grandmother, Gertrude McPherson, which also was about aging, actually about the life cycle and how women (she was born in 1882) were able to contribute to society and achieve fulfilment over the course of their lives. And of course, for many, that meant marrying and having children. Along the way she became a missionary (in Hong Kong), an artist and art teacher, was married and raised three daughters, and wrote a book, The Grey Cottage, hence the title of my new photo essay, adapted from the original 2001 edition, Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage.

My interest in aging and life cycle development started while at Western University, where I went many years after graduating from high school in Woodstock, Ontario. Taking courses on sex and gender, and aging and the life cycle in Sociology, while I was going through my own midlife changes put me on the path I would take, researching these areas of study and more. No career came of it, though I started the websites and have continued to do research.

List of resources

Ageism in Canada's health care system
Yahoo discussion group
founded by Sue McPherson
Feb 25, 2015
https://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/AgeismHealthCA

Baby boomers, longevity, and health care
Sue’s Views on the News
April 9, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/04/baby-boomers-longevity-and-health-care.html

CPSO complaints against Ontario doctors
Sue’s Views on the News
July 30, 2014
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2014/07/cpso-complaints-against-ontario-doctors.html

Diversity in Retirement website
Sue McPherson
since 2004
http://www.DiversityinRetirement.net

Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage
photo essay by Sue McPherson
adapted 2015 from 2001 essay
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/GertrudeMcPhersonandtheGreyCottage.html

Healthcare: Technology is a bigger cost driver than demography
By Julia Belluz
Macleans
February 10, 2012
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/10/healthcare-technology-is-a-bigger-cost-driver-than-demography/

Health care among single, older women – a case of discrimination for OHRT
Sue’s Views on the News
April 12, 2015
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2015/04/health-care-among-single-older-women.html

The decriminalization of prostitution: two women talking

Susan Davis, a Vancouver, BC, activist working for the rights of prostitutes, and me, Sue McPherson, from London, Ontario, not so keen on having prostitution activities decriminalized, had a discussion recently on the pages of rabble.ca (see excerpt below), in response to the March 2 article by Joyce Arthur (see link to article and comments in list of references).

Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 4:38pm.
What is a 'prostitution abolitionist' and who describes themselves thus?
Prostitution is not going to end. The selling of sex is never going to stop. But let's not equate working as a cashier with selling time to men during which they insert their penis into women's bodies. Let's not ever make the laws such that some women who cannot get other kinds of work will be encouraged, legally, or perseuaded, or forced into prostitution.
This topic - and the efforts of women to decriminalize it, cannot be rationalized. The world is a not a rational place but is filled with contradictions, especially where sex is concerned. Unfortunately, or should that be fortunately, prostitution has to stay exactly where it is. If anyone wants to introduce more health benefits, fine. But don't make this act of male penetration (and whatever else) into what might be an unwilling participant, legal.


Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 5:01pm.
Do you know that anyone who contributes towards easier access of sex for men will problaby do better in this world?
You say, "the abolitionist myth that 'prostituted women' are all passive victims of violent predators and pimps leads to an almost-hilarious contradiction when it confronts the realities of sex workers' lives.
I don't know what that is either - "abolitionist myth." I do know that women who have little or nothing are more likely to be the ones who get men coming on to them as though it is their right, as though all women have to contribute something "worthwhile" to the world, and as they see it, sex is it if they have no other means of support, or no one in their lives. Know why women seek out the best possible marriage partner they can - it's because all women must have a man in their lives, if not one, then share many with other women. What a choice! Circumstances play a great part in how one's life will turn out. But sex is always part of it. So, "almost hilarious contractions" is it? Not for everyone.


susan davis on March 2, 2012 - 9:27pm.
thankyou joyce for continuing to fight the mis information campaigns of the abolitionists. the complete disgregard abolitionists have for the facts is the biggest contributing factor to the on going degradation of the safety of sex workers in canada.
people listen, people believe them, policy is written based on these mis representations...
we have to move forward based on the facts and reality of working in the sex industry. i for one need no rescue and have not experienced any violence in years. yes it happens, no one is saying it doesn't. but how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that? it's not. only with sound planning and implementation of industry wide standards will we see improvement in the working conditions of sex workers.


Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 9:57pm.
I doubt very much that policy is written based solely on what you call "misrepresentations," Susan. Unless we know your circumstances, how can we come to understand why you haven't experienced violence while on the job. If you have women siding with you, as protection, perhaps that's what it takes. You're asking the wrong Q when you say, "how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that?" There really isn't an alternative solution to this problem, without putting all female children potentially at risk. I'm sure most people don't want to see prostitutes arrested, but there just isn't another way for police to keep the peace. Prostitution simply cannot be legitimized in the way that you want, without it leading to all sorts of problems within society for other women, especially women who live in poverty.
The problem is, you are only thinking of yourselves, not other women and young girl children learning about the world.


susan davis on March 3, 2012 - 11:10am.
perhaps if you read the reports we wrote on the experiences of 100's of sex workers and didn't subscribe to the idea that sex workers are either victims or greedy gold diggers you could see past your morality based arguements.
i live in total poverty, why is it that it's always the assumption that we are making boat loads of money and that we're so self centered that we are blind to the fate of our sisters in the sex industry?
i have dedicated the last 10 years of my life to the fight for equality, equal access to support services and police protection and improved safety and stability for sex working people in this country.
i have worked for 25 years in an industry with no labour standards or even protection of law. i have been in prison, worked on the street, survived 4 overdoses and numerous assaults and attempts on my life.
who are you? you clearly have not bothered to tkae the time to listen to sex workers from all over canada and to hear that we DO have altneratives, there is a better way to protect us. give us our equality and decriminalize us now.
the only path is to implement occupational health and safety programs and to work towards unweaving the tangled web of mainstream systems biases, not one of which does not affect our lives, and to give sex working people the same rights as every other canadian citizen enjoy.
i am not some lone profiteering exploitative self centered prostitute with only an eye for cash and other people's husbands. i resent the implcation as well. you don't know me.
www.wccsip.ca
www.bccec.wordpress.com
www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com read this occupational health and safety training and tell me if you think it will encourage people to enter the sex industry? information about abusive pimps and what happens when you are the victim of an assault and the way the police may treat you is hardly normalizing or encouraging anyone. or how about the extensive lists of health risks? sounds glamourous.


Sue McPherson on March 3, 2012 - 2:33pm.
Is it a question of morality when a person says they would rather their daughter did not become a prostitute? I consider myself fairly open-minded but I still wouldn't want that occupation for my daughter. But if she went into it, it wouldn't make any difference to our relationship, I'm sure. People have different beliefs and ways of perceiving the world and of acting in it, and it can become a problem when different interests collide, as they do over the decriminalization of prostitution. People might like to say "live and let live" as their way of dealing with difference, which is fine unless someone's toes get stepped on. You can do what you like, as long as it doesn't affect me or mine, or society (just because I am interested in how society goes). But what you are asking for - decriminalization, and the right to negoitate legally, does affect me, or could. and it would affect society, as I mentioned in one of my other posts.
You can't talk about sex work as though it is the same as being a cashier, or a firefighter, or a gardener. It - sex - is an act of intimacy, or at least is often considered to be by many people. If not an act of emotional intimacy, then at least it is an act of physical intimacy. Where does one person's individual personal sense of privacy start? Some people don't like to be touched on the arm. But I think there's more who would object to having to let a stranger engage in sexual intercourse with them. I don't see it as being about morality when a person wants the right not to have to argue that they don't want their privacy interfered with on this level. It's bad enough when landlord or maintenance man decides to enter your home without asking first. But one can let that slide. So if prostitution loses its 'criminal" edge, I should think it would make many men more willing to see how far they can take it - and not with the rich and powerful or women with husbands. It will be with the most vulnerable in society. Just because it's your choice doesn't mean that all women want to subjected to the behaviours that will crop up if it is decriminalized.
This is my blog: /http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com . I have written quite a bit about sexual politics and other forms of social inequality, not so much on prostitution per se.


susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 12:57pm.
sue, your privelged upbringing and higher education, your international migrations and lack of experience with poverty, being racialized or marginalized doesn't allow you to understnad the choices made by people who do face those experiences.
it is easy to say sex work is bad, abolish prostitution for the betterment of society because you will not be affected. you comment that you would not want your daughter or grand daughter to engage in sex work. the point is that you will not be there when your child makes a decision about sex work...would you not rather they could make that decision in safety? or would you be willing to see your child go missing? go to prison?be found murdered?fed to the pigs? be cast out of society because of your ideals?
how would that help them? it wouldn't. my parents and the other parents of sex workers feel the same way you do. no one imagines their child becoming a sex worker or dumpster diver or drug dealer, toiletter scrubber, or grave digger...
but it happens, its a fact. continuing to complicate the situation by basing policy on biased and discriminatory ideals rather than fact will cost people, women their lives. are you prepared to own your ideals even if it means the murder of women, and children ...or their incarcaration and humiliation?
there are laws to protect people from assault, slavery, abuse, extortion, debt servitude and labour laws to guarantee safe working conditions. there is the international charter of human rights guarnteeing us equal access to justice and safety.
or is it your belief that only those deemed "good" or "moral" are human and deserving of rights? sex workers were only classifed as human beings in vancouver in 1973. is this the approach you prefer?
we need rights and decriminalization in order to take control of our collective destinies and safety and what we don't need is people trying to impose their tired old ethics at the expense of our lives and safety.it's been 100 years of prohibition, it's over. the social experiment failed miserably, people are dead.
can we please move on and try something new?


Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 2:25pm.
I'm not so secure financially that I don't have to worry about things like that in my own life. I'm living on the edge, so to speak, not from month to month, but wondering how long I can last. All my resources went towards my education (at midlife), leaving me with nothing when there was no career to follow. I hadn't realized that the right relationships, with men and/or women, and conforming (not writing about what I do), were all essential to being accepted and rewarded for all my hard work. Susan, it seems you haven't read anything of mine or you might have realized that. Here's my life story, for additional info: http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html  .
So, yes, I do understand the experience of being marginalized and in poverty. And one thing I noticed, in case I didn't make that clear, was the first thing that happens is that men start to close in, figuring it's only a matter of time until you submit sexually, in order to survive.
That's an odd remark about motherhood that you make. Perhaps becoming a prostitute was a one-time decision for you, but I spent much of my time when married making sure my children had every opportunity available, to pursue their interests and learn new ones. It worked for my daughter, who followed our family's interest in swimming to her life's work. My ideals helped that happen. I know life isn't always that straightforward, but my ideals certainly didn't do her harm. As far as my views about sex are concerned, that's up to her what she does.
It's you , Susan, who is putting on this subject the condemnation of religion and saying that is my moral compass too, which it isn't. There can be a kind of 'morality,' if you insist on using that term, that doesn't include the notions of sin or God. I've already said to you that our world is not as rational a place as you would like to think it is. this isn't only about you having your rights. It's also about the rights of others to live in peace, without having to put up with men who start to think even more strongly about their apparent right to have sex with any woman they like. And there are men like that.
If you can address some of these concerns it might do your cause more good than simply demanding the decriminalization of prostitution and the right to negotiate freely with your customers. I don't want to be subjected to men who think that, because the law has changed, that they have the right to offer money to any woman who is vulnerable and isolated, for sex. You have to say how you are going to control men who take this as a new freedom in their lives. I don't want to see young women sent to the local brothel by the job agency because there is no other work avaiable for her.
I haven't actually noticed that laws protect me from illegal and harmful behaviours I have been subjected to. But I have seen women siding with men who do them, and men not wanting to cause offence towards the source of their joy. This is as much about sex as it is about prostitution, the work. I know feminists are fond of saying men and women are equal or should be, and some will work with you towards getting what you want, but their lives aren't going to be affected. Furthermore, when it comes to sexual desires and physical needs, they're not the same at all. I would want to know that world won't be a worse place for the vulnerable if decriminalization were to take place.


susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 2:40pm.
have you read anything we've written ...or the sex worker rights forum here? we have written plenty and people are listening. you seem to be a bit behind the times if you think sex workers aren't speking out.
about your daughter you say "it is up to her what she does" but what if that included sex work? no one is saying people should be forced to do sex work as an alternative to social assistance or that the government should force women into sex work. that is not decriminalization.
as it stands no one can be "forced to work" at any profession, even by the government. why would sex work be any different? why would the government force people into sex work when it does not force people into any other profession? your fears there are unfounded.
however, beauty bias does come into play when now for people trying to access finacial support and are told to become escorts or exotic dancers because they are pretty. some people are denied finacial support because they are a sex worker, whether they want to exit or not.
so how does continuing to criminalize us help with that? it doesn't. it means that anything people do to us is accepteable, we are criminals and get what we deserve.
decriminalization has NOT produced the effect you are describing in any of the countries where it has taken place. in fact the opposite. you are basing your position on moral panic, mis information and a lack of knowledge of the facts. the "vulnerable" are the ones criminalized. the workers on the street bare the brunt of police enforcement actions and as brothels and show lounges are closed due to criminalization, more and more workers are forced onto the street. more and more workers die also. we can see that in the mortality rate of vancouver sex workers escalating over a number decades as a result of uniformed actions taken against our industry. please read the history of sex work thread in the sex worker rights forum.
take a little time to educate yourself on the facts, your position has no backbone in reality. do you care about sex worker safety or not?


Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 4:48pm.
Hey, lady, we all do sex work (or have done). It's what women were born to do! Didn't you know that? Some people are just more open about what they get in return - money, careers, a home with hubby! Most women wouldn't say that about themselves, as it is a norm in society. We are simply raised to be that way. Some are quite knowing and use their feminine wiles in practical ways to get what they want.
It's not the govt who does the persuading, when it comes to what kind of work a person will do. The clerks at the job centre, or the personnel office at the place of work gets to choose who will get accepted and who will not. So anything done to poor people is acceptable - as you seem to already know - unless they are actually doing sex work, then they have worth.
No, I have not seen any facts on how decrimilaization has affected other countries. I don't know how easy it would be to get hold of. I just know what men are like now, and it doesn't take too much effort to see how decriminalizing the negotiation of sex will lead to all sorts of social 'misunderstandings'. Having already been a victim of similar kinds of misunderstandings, where intentions or behaviour were misunderstood, and in situations where such behaviour was regulated against, I can only surmise that it will get worse, if there is no fear of reprisal among men for their bad behaviour.
I have always heard about prostitutes struggles for healthcare, etc, but that also is something many other women and men are not getting in this society. Yes, I'm sure your work is dangerous to your safety. Men can be like that. You may experience more of that, because of your job, but many women have also experienced violence, at the hands of stronger men or men who control them.
I don't see that the ones doing work that is criminalized are the more vulnerable. It's because it is sex work, and men who find themselves in need of sex, or wanting to punish someone for what some other woman has done to them will seek out the most vulnerable - the one isolated, or lacking money, homeless, or without a man in her life.


susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 7:24pm.
the men who purchase sex are not "bad men" nor are all men prone to violence....this seems like you are unwilling to step outside of your comfort zone and actually look up the facts.
why can't men be vulnerable? why do we as a society assume all men are only out for themselves and self gratification? a man whose penis has been amputated to prevent the spread of cancer is vulnerable and in need of care. he is not a "bad" person nor is his lonliess "bad behaviour". he is suffering. why does he not deserve to be comforted and if a sex worker chooses to do so, why should she not comfort him? how is this "bad"?
can you imagine if suddenly being a nurse was illegal? how easy would it be for nurses to work if they were deemed criminals? or how about milk? what if milk was sudeenly illegal and milk producers had to operate in dark isolated areas risking their lives to sell their wares?
i mean criminalizing alcohol didn't "harm" anyone did it? or criminalizing drugs? or abortion? how can you be so blind to the impacts of being deemed criminal and the impact of being the victim of police violence during raids?
you have created a seperate set of rules for sex workers. that is discrimination and is illegal under the international charter of human rights.
please at least have the respect enough if not for us but yourself to actually read up on this a bit and discover perhaps where you may have yourself discriminated against sex workers and ways in which you could better embrace government of canada policies governing research and understand which "facts ' you are being mislead with.
those rules are in place for a reason... to inform canadians about the ethics and reliability of the research findings they are considering. try to understnad from our perspective, being a criminal is a huge barrier as is a criminal record. how is arresting women helping them?
these laws are completely ineffective, its time to protect people not punish them and to try something new.


Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 9:56pm.
But we were talking about the men who made your life less secure - the ones who commit acts of violence? I know from doing research on sexual harassment that not all men who do this are nasty men either - many are husbands and fathers and otherwise good, hardworking, intelligent men.
Oh right - nurses. This entire issue has nothing to sex, is that what you're saying. However, speaking of nurses, read Dutch man sees it his right to have nurses serve his sexual needs: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/03/dutch-man-sees-it-his-right-to-have.html  ... . I hope you see my point of view.
I do realize that prostitutes are hard done by. So are people in the lower classes picked on more than they deserve. After all, it isn't ALL sex workers who get arrested, is it. eg Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the prostitutes he was involved with. He was so important he didn't even have to admit they were. But sex work is still not the same as being a cashier, much as you would like the Human Rights Commission to say it is. It's pointless for me to simply repeat what I've already said, but that's about it - selling sexual intercourse is not the same as any other job.
No discrimination doesn't apply in the case of prostitution because it's about sex. It's a sensitive topic and we simply cannot have an act of sex for money made legal because of the implications this would have for society. Don't worry about the criminal record. Everyone knows it's unfair and if it's used against you it's because they don't like the colour of your hair or your views on football. Perhaps some lawkeepers want to punish you - just as some of your clients do. But working within the law, if it were changed, won't keep you much safer. The men who would have abused you will have to find other ways of dealing with their frustrations; instead, going after other vulnerable and isolated women. Decriminalizing prostitution isn't going to make the abusive men go away completely. It might make you into an ordinary citizen, just like everyone else, but that won't keep you safe.
Susan, what I can do, with your permission, is publish this discussion we've had on my blog, including a link to the original article on rabble.ca by Joyce Arthur. It's another outlet for people to read your views, and mine.


susan davis on March 5, 2012 - 10:26am.
won't make it "much safer"....based on what research or other countries expeireinces? it will make it safer and the sex workers used by dominque strauss-kahn are not immune. in the US, i watched on "sex slaves in detriot" last night, they arrest women to "rescue" girls. i also commincate with US workers through the social justice work i do...they arrested 100 women in 1 episode, showed their faced, filmed them naked, broadcast it on television....total humiliation, in my opinion it's violence when police to these kinds of degrading things. they were all indoor workers in highend hotels. the sting was police in the hotel baiting the workers. in the end the had "leads" on 3 pimps and 5 "girls" no arrests in that area but had comprimised the safety, confidentiality and dignity of over 100 women.... arresting them all in the name of "rescue".
just becuase you don't hear about sex workers being charged doesn't mean it doesn't happen. thst show was on back to back to back last night....how many women were comprimised throughout the 3 episodes...?
and sure, if you would like to repost this to your blog, i am good with that.

(continued at http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts  )


Any changes to prostitution laws not coming soon
By Sam Pazzano
Toronto Sun
June 19, 2011
Ottawa Sun
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/19/any-changes-to-prostitution-lawsnot-coming-soon

How prostitution abolitionists substitute ideologies for facts
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
March 2, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts

The mistaken logic of 'asymmetrical criminalization' -- aka the Nordic model of prostitution
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
February 3, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/crazy-logic-asymmetrical-criminalization-aka-nordic-model-prostitution

Ontario Appeal Court decriminalizes brothels (article added Sept 2012)
CTVNews.ca Staff
Mar 26, 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120326/appeal-court-decision-canada-sex-trade-laws-120326/

Prostitution ‘not a constitutionally-protected right,’ Crown argues in landmark case
By Kirk Makin
Globe and Mail
June 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prostitution-not-a-constitutionally-protected-right-crown-argues-in-landmark-case/article2058348/

Who does decriminalization leave out?
By Meghan Murphy
The F Word, and Feminist Current
Jan 30, 2012
http://www.feminisms.org/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
http://feministcurrent.com/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/

Prostitutes take their desires to the Supreme Court

(revised Jan 25, 2012)

Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable

Prostitution has been decriminalized, although laws surrounding it involve illegal activity. That's what some prostitutes want to have changed. They want to challenge the laws that ban keeping a bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution and procurement. If they accomplish their aim of making these legal, then what's to stop poor people (young women) from being further exploited in society. Sure, some women may be in this career by choice, or as a temporary measure to pay off debts, but we have to think about how it will affect those with fewer choices in life who have virtually no alternative if they want to survive. Don't make this easy for those who see the prostitution as a legitimate, objective exchange of money for what should be seen as an intimate act. For the sake of our next generation, there needs to be a distinction between legitimate forms of employment and this.

Above is the letter I submitted to the editor of the London Free Press today, in response to 'Sex workers turn to Supreme Court' (see reference list).  Letter posted to the LFP website Jan 23, published in The London Free Press on Jan. 25, 2012.
 

The news story came out in different forms at more or less the same time. My comments to the CBC report, submitted hours apart, were not published. No comments were published on the page following the article itself which contained selected comments, though the story itself was changed after a day or so to what you see there now, explaining that "roughly 76 per cent of 1770 respondents said 'Yes, activities like keeping a bawdy house and communicating for prostitution should be legal'."    (CBC, Community Reaction).

While the CTV news site did not publish my comment (CTV, Sex-trade workers), 45 others were, before Comments were closed.

The Toronto Sun was more liberal, publishing mine in with 37 other comments (See Toronto Sun, Sex Workers, comments section).

This is a serious matter, and if the issues do not get the attention they deserve, then society will suffer - or should we say the poor in society will suffer.

Community reaction to sex-trade workers' Supreme Court appearance
By Community Team
CBC News
January 20, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/community-reaction-to-sex-trade-workers-arguments-to-the-supreme-court.html

Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
By Susan A McPherson
LFP letters
London Free Press
Jan 23, 2012 (Jan 25 in the LFP hard copy).
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=48457&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter

Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims, Parliamentary Bureau
London Free Press
January 19, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/01/19/19268456.html

Sex-trade workers take case to Canada's top court
By CTV News.ca Staff
CTV News
Jan. 19 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120119/sex-trade-workers-court-20119/

Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims ,Parliamentary Bureau
Toronto Sun
January 19, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/19/sex-workers-turn-to-supreme-court#disqus_thread

The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives

[revised Jan 12, 2012]

In November, 2011, Heinz Klatt, retired professor, wrote a piece for Western News (UWO, London, Ont), with the title 'Occupy movement may be most vapid of all,' Nov 24, in which he complained about the Occupiers, ending with a suggestion that they might, after all, be on the same side, against the 1%.

Klatt was critical of the Occupiers not being able to articulate their concerns well or comprehend their aims sufficiently. But we all speak from our own knowledge base - from ‘education,’ the media, our own experience, and elsewhere. If the Occupiers are pursuing a particular path (placing blame on the 1%) and still sorting out where their movement is heading, then we should consider that normal, under the circumstances. Which revolutionary movement ever strated out being well organized and knowing exactly what their aims were and how they could be accomplished. Take the women's liberation movement as an example of a movement that has been chaotic at times, with no clear direction or organization in its early years. Chaining themselves to gates and throwing themselves in front of horses may not appear to us to be well thought-out strategies for success, but look at them now. As the Occupiers continue to discuss, listen to others, reflect on what they want for themselves and society, and to organize, no doubt their movement will progress in achieving their aims and their ability to express them.

The media’s emphasis, Klatt’s, and Bernie Hammond's, whose Nov 17 piece was the instigator of this discussion, all claim that the 1% is the problem, not that there could be many reasons why social inequality is worse now than in recent decades. As the division between the classes widens, there is bound to be increasing disatisfaction among those lower down, while those at the top (eg top 30-50%) reap the benefits of the 'good life.' Yet this fact of life, that the struggle for scarce resources exists at every level of society, has yet to be recognized as a contributing factor to the problem of social inequality in general.

Feminism is one contributing factor - beginning with the women's liberation movement that formed in opposition to men's dominance in society, and which now is in many ways dominant itself, if not over men of their own class, then over men and women lower down in terms of economic standing. Unfortunately, the real numbers of good careers and jobs in society has not increased, even though many more women are now working alongside men, and marrying them, resulting in increased numbers of the well-off dual-career, dual-income family and their assumptions of entitlement.

Feminism has achieved much for women's independence, but not for all women. And while men used to be dominant, in general, that dominance is now shared with women. We no longer live in a world where the man is breadwinner with a wife at home. In fact, most young people do not understand the way things were. Nor do many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.


Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html

Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html

Income inequality: deep, complex and growing
By Jeffrey Simpson
Globe and Mail
Dec 09, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/income-inequality-deep-complex-and-growing/article2264938/

The poor are doing better than you think [comments section]
By Margaret Wente [and concerned readers]
Globe and Mail
Dec 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-poor-are-doing-better-than-you-think/article2266245/comments/

Ageism, Class, and the Wealth Gap Between the Young and Old

The only place in Huffington Post that the generation gap, or aging, or ageism, is being discussed is in the business section. And even so, this piece (the US Wealth Gap) written by Hope Yen could actually be about so many things, and not just about the division of wealth between the old and the young. It is a false division, more than likely intended to create division between the generations instead of explain it.

We all know there are seniors who are living in poverty, just as we know there are under 35-year-old­s who have too much money to spend. Manipulati­ng statistics to arrive at the conclusion one wants to isn't clever. It is devious, it is cunning, and it may even work (depending on one's agenda), but how can people have respect for such a person who writes this nonsense, or for the Huff Post editors who condone it, even encourage it. After all, isn't what counts the amount of reader interest, the number of comments (over 8,000).

Furthermore, why is there still a section called 'Women' in the Living category of this paper? Why isn't it called Gender? And how about one called 'Couples and Singledom'­?

And why isn't there a category called 'Aging' or the 'Generatio­n Gap'? Why are the difference­s between the young and the old all made to come down to money? I would like to talk about aging itself, and not simply about the differences in income between the generations that some writers are treating as the main issue.

The other piece referred to below is another piece of nonsense, placing the blame squarely on the high worth of the top 1% of households in the US. Yet the problem is not the top 1%. The problem is all around us. The problem is in the way some of the higher income earners in the 99% treat others in this immense category, which includes doctors, lawyers, service workers, and receptionists. It reflects the struggle of life, the quest for more, and the effort for some to stop others from getting even a small share fo the scarce resources our world has to offer.

The problem is not that the healthcare workers are overworked. It is that they spend their effort on taks that are non-productive, on trying to give more to some individuals and making sure others get less. The system is not so much overburdened with too may sick or old people. It is overburdened with too many who have health insurance making sure they get every dollar's worth, and then some.

I don't believe that 'generational warfare' was designed by the 1% to distract the rest of us from looking at class differences, as stated in 'One Percent.' The complexity of our world is such that different agendas collide as they pursue their own interests, and sometimes join forces to gang up on one group - usually the most vulnerable, and for the purpose for protecting their own interests. Get people to blame the 1% and they won't be so ready to place the responsibility where it lies - in the way boys and girls are raised, and indoctrinated, into pushing their way forward, seeking more money, and more power. What's more, the main divide isn't between the young and old; it isn't a generational divide. It's between each level of society, between those struggling for more and those who have it and are trying to keep it!


The One Percent Turns Class War Into Generational War
By Dean Baker
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-one-percent-turns-cla_b_1080141.html

U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments  

Widest-ever wealth gap between young and old in the US

This very one-sided article has appeared in numerous newspapers' websites today. It places blame for economic disparity between the young and the old strictly on the shoulders of the old, regardless of income, home ownership, marital status, or work history.

One reason the economic division between young and old can be seen as increasing over the last 30 to 50 years is the effect of feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce - changing norms, in other words.

Whereas 50 years ago a wealthy man might have a wife who stayed home and did charity work, now, older men are sought out by women for what they have to offer - in the firm, or as an influential, hidden, character reference for other careers. Thus the household with the head at age 65 plus might have a 45year old wife with high earning power in today's world.

I am not surprised that whoever wrote this piece didn't want to include this probable effect. It's not something the middle class really wants to deal with. And as women continue to marry men with the best resources, how can we ever expect the situation to get better. One of the side effects of feminism. What's that called again - oh, collateral damage.

Another problem with this article - something omitted - is that many old people, particularly older women, live in poverty. They may not be in debt, and so would not be included in the 8% mentioned in the last sentence. But despite receiving old age benefits, many will be struggling to get by.

So often we see articles and blogs that onlty serve to create more antagonism between the generations. Would I be right in assuming that the author of this piece is under 40, and female, and has her own agenda?

One other issue is the comment made by Harry Holzer, labor economist and public policy prof at Georgetown University, who is quoted as saying "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." Apparently he called magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."

Note that he, like the other 'experts' mentioned in this piece, places the blame on old people in general, when it is obvious that the ones who will lose out if money allocated for healthcare is taken away are those with limited resources. It will be the ones without private medical insurance who will have to try to make do with even less proper healthcare.

I don't know if we can assume that the situation is the same in Canada., regarding health care matters and more importantly, the gap between the old and the young, but knowing the effects that feminism has caused in Canada, it sounds as though it could be the same here as in the US.


U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Huffington Post Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments

U.S. wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
USA Today
Nov 8, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1

Links updated July, 2012

Gender, sex and aging: What do we owe our spouses?

A trio of stories on the Huffington Post drew my interest recently, all related matters, to do with gender, sex, and aging. Sex was the drawing card in D A Wolf's 'Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?', and is an inviting resource for anyone wanting to know what other readers think about sex between two people in a relationship. The comments section attracted an enthusiastic crowd, each one either telling their own personal story, or making one up, or simply letting everyone know what they thought about the subject of Wolf's piece.

But in the next piece on sex, the attitude of readers/commenters changed considerably. This one was about sex among the baby boomers, and for that reason, it appears, became the target of jokes and ridicule. Could it be that the approach was wrong, and not simply that older citizens are the target of jokes in this ageist society of ours? In an attempt to persuade the world that baby boomers can have sex just like anyone else, and enjoy it, the writers, whoever they were, may have been just a bit on the defensive. What formed the basis of the piece were myths that were then dispelled by the writers' claims. We don't hear who the writers were, and the format of the piece was awkward to read, being fairly short but, including the comments section, split up over 7 pages.

As with the first piece on the subject of sex, this second piece was also clearly about people within the state of coupledom. Those without partners had no real need to peruse the pieces, let alone comment on them, unless they still had hope, or at least intentions, to become half of a couple sometime in the future. This was my main objection to both these pieces, that single men and women were left out or left hanging on the margins, although in the 'ageless' couples and sex article, at least that was a topic many of us knew something about from previous experience. It doesn't seem to even occur to the writers of the boomers' sex piece that most older people aren't going to have casual sex, just for the fun of it (despite what the quoted lavalifePRIME says).

The final point about these two stories is that, as usual with such stories, there is little or no analysis of the society in which it all takes place. We all take for granted that we live in western society and that both men and women have certain freedoms, but there are still the remnants of traditional marriage present in our ways of thinking, as well as the modern ways of looking at our experiences through the eyes of feminism. Thus, women are seen (and speak) from both the perspective of not being equal with men in ways of dealing with sexual matters, as well as at times acting like men and taking on men's ways of dealing with sexual matters.

And that leads us to the last of the stories, also about the older generation, about women in particular. Once again, this piece incorporates aspects of old-fashioned tradition, of a woman being a homemaker, but about doing so after having had a fulfilling career. I think one aim of it was truly to justify and uphold the legitimate choice of women to be homemakers, but quite a number of readers comments were negative about the choices available to the writer, and particularly about the perceived uselessness of her choice, to stay home. At this point in our society, in which the economy has still not rebounded, if some women express the desire to remain at home to be homemakers and/or raise children, it doesn't help to treat them like pariahs. Just as some homemakers may not take their work seriously, or do a good job, so are there women in the workforce who aren't conscientious, or doing their work to the best of their ability. It isn't work per se that makes one person better than another. It isn't the paycheque that a person brings home, or the taxes they pay, that makes them better than someone else. It might lead them to be seen as different, to be living a lifestyle that's not the norm, in this society where occupation and financial resources are the determinants of a person's identity and worth. It's much easier to do after having a career, than rely on an ex to provide a reference, but it's still good to hear about women living this way, so that society does not forget how things were done in the past.

Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?
by D A Wolf
Huffington Post Divorce
Oct 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-a-wolf/do-we-owe-our-spouses-sex_b_927484.html?ref=love--sex

Most Common Sex Myths About Baby Boomers
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/the-most-common-sex-myths_n_1057479.html

Words With Friends and Back to Home-Ec
by Jamie Lee Curtis
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/50s-housewives-home-ec-_b_1006209.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101211&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Myths about money and health: who should pay for health-care, and who should be getting it

Revised June 2012

The article I have based this blog comment on is this, from the Globe and Mail - 'Make rich seniors pay for drugs, report says'. A secondary issue is the "cost-effectiveness" of the care given by doctors, which I don't believe is quite the same meaning as "improve the quality of patient care."

So, first of all, I would like to say this: There are certain myths in society that need to be dispelled. The idea that the wealthy are worth more, in their very humanity, than the poor, is one of them.

There are other myths in society that are just as commonly believed, or rather, simply not questioned, but first things first. Some people having more wealth than others is not a good reason why they should be treated better, though of course, in some circumstances, having money enables a person to buy better treatment and health-care.

The slippery slope of the myth of the greater 'worthiness' of the wealthy leads not just to more choices given to them, but also more advantages in their health-care, to the extent that all other things being equal, the wealthy will still receive better treatment than the poor, even when it is available to all, apparently, regardless of class or wealth. Why?

The myth is that the wealthy are internally 'better' in character, in work ethic, determination, decision-making, and all other traits that make for a better citizen in Canadian society. Thus, more is given to them, and more is taken away from the poor. This is how our just society works.

Added June, 2012

According to this article, altering the way ODB (Ontario Drug Benefits program) is carried out could affect “universality of access.” Of course it would. That would be the whole purpose of having those who are better off pay for their own drugs. The only “alarms” likely to be raised would be those in the heads of the wealthy who might be thinking What next? The fears of the rich are so great they can’t help pushing down those in need farther down just to protect benefits they surely know they don’t deserve, much of the time, or need.

In addition to the idea to “overhaul the way doctors are compensated by paying them, not only for treatment, but care that is cost-effective.” If we leave this up to health care staff to determine, there’s no limit to how they might interpret this need. Cost-effectiveness might mean that care and treatment given to people in society who are not contributing in the way they would like, or not reproducing, or not providing various other tasks and functions seen as valuable, or do not own their own homes, might find themselves on the dnt list – do not treat.

It could be requested that staff and doctors treat all patients the same – *objectively* - meaning give each one the same quality of care as another, except that stands the risk of being interpreted as treating the patient as an object (unless of course, they are known to you), with no fair assessment of their needs or what treatment might be best for them.

Finally, the matter of sustainability, or as the article says, “Without such profound changes, suggests a report released Thursday by TD Economics, public health care as Canadians know it is unsustainable.” Yet we can afford F35s, full day kindergarten, sending financial help to countries like Haiti? I don’t see the government telling Michael Ferguson, or the Ministry of Education, or Michel Jean that’s there no money for their causes.

Some people in society have more care given to their needs. And that’s not likely to change, when the cuts come. Many of these would be able to pay for health-care not only for themselves but the healthcare of others. They will never come to see themselves as having enough money to share the wealth because they want to be able to leave a nice inheritance to their children.


Make rich seniors pay for drugs, report says
By Lisa Priest and Karen Howlett
Globe and Mail, and in Social Policy in Ontario
May 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/make-rich-seniors-pay-for-drugs-report-says/article1582236/  not working

http://spon.ca/make-rich-seniors-pay-for-drugs-health-care-report-says/2010/05/27/


http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/05/myths-about-money-and-health-who-should.html
Links updated June 2012

If Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits, shouldn't we all?

The wealthy and powerful don't always get to know what is meant by the saying, 'life isn't fair,' or 'shit happens.' It's remarkable that the editorial board of the National Post still don't understand what is meant by this. They still seem to believe that bad things don't happen to good people, that sometimes - one more time - life just isn't fair.

And what is this language - militant cyclists? class warriors? Look who are the class warriors in this piece - the journalists, the lawyers and judges, and the politicians who enabled this decision to happen and who decided to blame the guy from the lower class in society and let the privileged one off.

"But no one’s career should be derailed forever by an incident such as this" write the editors of the National Post, as though this kind of tragedy, that forever alters the course of a person's life, doesn't happen very often at all, as though this is an exceptional circumstance, and that it just shouldn't happen. Life is fair, after all, and the good and intelligent always get what they deserve! Right? Wrong. It happens to people all the time - you just don't notice it until it happens to one of you.

Take note of the more than 500 comments on the Globe and Mail article by Christie Blatchford. Not everyone thinks Michael Bryant should have gotten off as lightly as he did - or is it that most people think justice should have been permitted to take its course, through a trial.

Added May, 012

In ‘Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits,’ 2010, The National Post refers to Darcy Sheppard as having engaged in “outbursts of primal madness,” as though that couldn’t have also been explanation for the behaviour of Michael Bryant – reverting to the ‘fight or flight’ syndrome, and in this case choosing a bit of both – attempting to get Mr Sheppard to let go of the car, while trying to remove himself and his car from this situation.

Furthermore, the same piece concludes that “Mr. Bryant should be judged in future — politically or otherwise — according to his merits, or lack thereof.” If this bit of wisdom could also be applied to other people who found themselves in unfortunate, adverse circumstances, instead of having the event used forever as proof of personal, internal failings, the world might be a more just place in which to live.

Christie Blatchford writes,

“He [special prosecutor Richard Peck] went out of his way to speak kindly about the dead man, noting that he brought up Mr. Sheppard’s unlucky background (aboriginal, probably undiagnosed fetal alcohol syndrome, seized by child welfare and placed with his brother David in a staggering 30 foster homes before being adopted) and highlights of his criminal record “not to demonize Mr. Sheppard or for anyone to suggest he somehow deserved his fate,” but rather because in a case where self-defence was claimed, these were relevant facts” (For Mr Bryant, an extraordinary, 2010).

In other situations, bringing in relevant facts may be seen as an attempt to discredit the honourable person being discussed, not as an attempt to discover the truth of the matter. And it’s not simply the words one speaks; it’s the tone in which they are uttered that matter. Running Darcy Sheppard down in a “kindly” fashion, while simply ignoring many of Michael Bryant’s actions that day, can lead others’ understanding of the situation in a certain direction, and not to one that is fair judgement of what happened that day. Bringing in the personal background and past history of Mr Sheppard, knowing that Michael Bryant’s credentials were near perfect, is an unfair comparison. Is this what Mr Peck did, and by doing so imply that the questionable actions taken by Mr Bryant that day were an aberration, unusual considering his personality and background, ie. if he did anything wrong at all?

This must be one of those situations that fit within the realm of the moral dilemma – how to bring justice to this situation. It’s too bad that justice for Michael Bryant could only be achieved by placing the blame on Darcy Sheppard. I suppose, in our world, especially in our legal system, there is no place for matters that fall in between right and wrong, that really are unusual circumstances that need an unusual resolution (and I imagine a lot of cases fall with in that grey area). Whatever Darcy Sheppard’s faults, he didn’t deserve to have this case dismissed so early in the judicial process, leaving Michael Bryant not simply ‘not guilty’ of the charges laid, but completely innocent of anything untoward.

The Toronto Star is right, that Michael Bryant “deserves public understanding,” that “What happened to him could happen to anyone” (Justice in Michael Bryant case, 2010). But the newspaper is not correct in concluding that what happened in the aftermath of the tragedy speaks well of the legal system. For one person involved, the legal system worked well, but not for Darcy Sheppard.

In a similar manner, Franco Tarulli writes, “Ontario did exactly the right thing in this case, and the result is exactly what ought to have happened” (Michael Bryant: “Extraordinary” justice?, 2010). Justice may have been served, for Michael Bryant, but the way the special prosecutor handled the case doesn’t appear to have been fair. Bringing up Darcy Sheppard’s past failings and personal background as evidence that this was what caused the incident to happen was premature. There was no trial, and this should have no more place in the public’s mind than the damage committed, for whatever reason, by Bryant and the car he was driving.



For Michael Bryant, an extraordinary kind of justice
By Christie Blatchford
Globe and Mail
May 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/for-michael-bryant-an-extraordinary-kind-of-justice/article1580911/
http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/updates/100525globe3.html
http://lists.von.ca/pipermail/fasd_canadian_link/2010-May/001763.html

Justice in Michael Bryant case
Toronto Star
May 26, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/814268--justice-in-michael-bryant-case

Michael Bryant: “Extraordinary” justice?
By Franco P. Tarulli
The Ethical Lawyer
May 30, 2010
http://tarullilaw.com/ethicallawyer/2010/05/30/michael-bryant-extraordinary-justice/

Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits
By National Post editorial board
National Post
May 25, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/25/judge-michael-bryant-on-his-merits/#more-1516

Links updated May, 2012

Attitudes towards poverty

This article, the Poverty-Health Link, needs more of a response than simply saying the solution is to "reduce poverty." I have found that living without enough money is extremely stressful, besides not always having the money to pay for healthy-living foods. Stress itself might lead one to seek comfort foods, at least on more occasions than those better off. Giving up - feeling despondent about life - could lead to a poor person to have difficulty finding the effort to exercise, not to mention not having the money to take a taxi to the local swimming pool (a situation I found myself in Colchester, UK. Buses only got as close as several blocks away.) Then, when this despondency is seen by others, it may be mistaken for laziness. Trying to deal with the attitudes of ignorant others is half the battle. It's difficult to get to some medical appointments, when the cost of taxis and parking is sometimes beyond one's means.

Would poor people be best advised to spend their last $10 on healthy food, or keeping that appointment to take care of that health problem? For people not on welfare or not officially disabled, struggling to get by, assistance in transportation costs would be a great idea. Local governments, and any interested group:(1) Try and make health and recreation facilities available to everyone, not just those who have their own transportation, money, and health to access them. (2) Educate public employees, especially those in health services, what it feels like to not have one's needs listened to, especially if one's health is poor. (3) Provide low-cost foods in supermarkets, some labelled 'basic' if you like, and fruits and vegetables with flaws, for those who have no hangups about such things. (4) Recognize that there probably are a lot of people struggling with health and money issues who also have to deal with the general public attitude that being poor means one is stupid and lazy.


The poverty-health link

Editorial
Toronto Star
Feb 10, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/584859

Beyond Workaday Worlds
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.comfilesEssaysandWritingBeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc


Links updated Apr 2012