PALLID POLICY
Regarding your interview with Stéphane Dion, "Does this man have the royal jelly?" (Oct 30, 2007, Vol 4, No 18), the obvious answer to your title's question is no, he does not.

The questions you posed gave Mr Dion an opportunity to come out with unambiguous support for Canada's public healthcare system, to outline his strategy for improving it and to send a clear message to those who want to turn it into a cash cow that that is not an option. With his muddled vision and lack of strategy, he failed completely to do so, instead leaving the door wide open to for-profit medicine.

Mr Dion's ambiguity toward Drs Day and Chaoulli - crusaders for for-profit healthcare - is particularly revealing. There is no evidence that for-profit health care is better or cheaper overall, or that it will solve wait time problems. There is plenty of evidence, however, that parallel private systems siphon off scarce resources from the public system and create a two-tier system that benefits the wealthy.

This is no surprise. It was, after all, Mr Dion and his Liberal Cabinet cronies who cut billions from healthcare funding and allowed federal support for public healthcare to drop to the lowest point in Medicare's history — 15%, far from the original 50%. It took a full decade for the Liberal regime to even return funding back to 1993-94 levels — this despite billions in surpluses dumped on debt reduction and billions more spent on corporate tax giveaways. Meanwhile, with the Liberals muzzling Canada Health Act enforcement, profit-seekers like Dr Day were allowed to gain a foothold and flourish.

Thriving public healthcare was not a priority for Mr Dion and the Liberals then and it is clearly not their priority now. With no distinct public healthcare vision or strategy, Mr Dion will simply continue to support the Conservatives in taking Canada in the wrong direction toward two-tier healthcare.

In contrast, Jack Layton and the NDP, having looked at the evidence and listened to Canadians, favour creative public solutions to critical problems like wait times, rising drug costs and personnel shortages and are unambiguously opposed to the further privatization of our public system.

We alone refuse to sacrifice the fundamental principle of equality at the heart of our public healthcare system.

— Judy Wasylycia-Leis, MP for Winnipeg North Centre, MB (NDP Health Critic)

HARM REDUCTION
Thank you for doing the article on federal drug policy, "'Doctors, get tough on drugs:' Tony Clement" (Sept 15, 2007, Vol 4, No 15). I went to Vancouver and met with the scientists who are doing extraordinary, inspiring, life-saving work. It was a great experience. I think we must keep the truth in the public eye.

— Dr Keith Martin, MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, BC (Liberal)

ROCKING THE BOAT
I am shocked that this group of Health Canada 'medics' would take such a vicious stand against Dr John O'Connor (re "Health Canada muzzles oilsands whistleblower," March 30, 2007, Vol 4, No 6).

Dr O'Connor reported on sentinel cases of cholangiocarcinoma at rates of 3-5 per 1,200 — 300-500 times the national average of 1-2 per 100,000 — in a First Nations community.�He was rightly alarmed and should receive the appropriate national recognition for his astute clinical observations.

This Health Canada complaint/action smells very much of collusion, using medical 'gunslingers,' to silence tar sands critics. One is reminded of practices,�in the not too distant past, of the tobacco and coal mine industries, and in the present time the asbestos industry, to silence professionals who 'rock the boat.'

If we allow this 'straitjacket' to be applied each time a medical practitioner speaks out, we run the risk of being silenced for our scientific opinion. Is this Canada?

I wish Dr O'Connor�the satisfaction of meeting these bullies on a level playing field to set the record straight.

— Dr Noel Kerin, Kerin Occupational�and Environmental Health Consultants Inc, Toronto, ON

HOPE AND DELUSION
Kudos to Owen Dyer for his in-depth coverage of our findings that positive emotional well-being does not predict the survival of cancer patients, and, more generally, that there exists no evidence that psychotherapy prolongs their survival ("Good cheer's no cure for cancer: study," Nov 15-30, Vol 4, No 19).

Psychotherapy and support groups remain important means of improving cancer patients' quality of life, but not extending the quantity of life. That is the important message we are trying to get to cancer patients and professionals alike. It is an effort to counter what Barrie Cassileth has termed the "unintentional cruel hoax" of suggesting to cancer patients that attending a support group will extend their lives. Anyone who has further interest in the topic can form their own opinions by reading some relevant peer-reviewed papers, obtainable free from me upon request at [email protected].

It is unfortunate that Professor David Spiegel takes our message personally and disparages our motives for disseminating it. He also misrepresents me as a "newcomer to this field [who] is trying to establish himself by attacking me and others," even though grant reviews from the National Cancer Institute recently described me as "an internationally known cancer researcher who brings appropriate expertise to this protocol. His long list of publications and NIH grants speak for themselves..." Moreover, the Institute for Scientific Information/Web of Science lists me as among the 225 most cited psychologists and psychiatrists in the world.

— James C Coyne, PhD, Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

CORRECTION
In "Get paid for providing uninsured services" (Nov 15-30, Vol 4, No 19), we incorrectly wrote that physicians must offer patients the choice of paying a block fee for uninsured services or paying per service. In fact, physicians are not required to offer a block fee billing plan though they must always offer a per-service option.