Letters, Feb. 4

Care while aging

Re: Pair of St. B ER deaths probed (Feb. 3)

Early into the article about Judy Burns, 68, who died three days after being admitted, are some words which can’t be ignored, particularly if you are elderly. Those words are, “age-based dismissal.”

Would our health-care system actually ignore someone based on their age? As someone who will turn 80 this year (and is healthy), I say “yes” to the question.

Recently, during an annual check-up, I asked our doctor about PSA testing, which measures hormone levels in the blood to detect prostate cancer. Apparently it is no longer done for men of a certain age. When I asked for test strips for colorectal cancer, I learned that they are generally not available to persons over 75. Why would certain tests no longer be conducted or available to elderly patients?

With ever-increasing costs, could it be that our public-funded healthcare system has developed a “cost-benefit” model, based on a person’s age? Are AI and algorithms being used to establish a protocol which measures the “return on investment” in the treatment of seniors? Perhaps certain tests are no longer being conducted on the elderly because the cost to the system and subsequent treatment costs don’t warrant the benefits, for someone whose lifespan window is shrinking.

To an old person, particularly one who is healthy, the prospect of this kind of discriminatory practice is frightening. I have no evidence that such a practice exists, other than the examples I cited, but I also don’t have confidence that a version of this “cost-benefit” model doesn’t exist. It’s an economic and ethical question worth looking into!

Wally Barton

Winnipeg

Bureaucratic breakdown

Re: Manitoba isn’t ready for nation-building projects (Think Tank, Jan. 31).

The endless bureaucratic approval process set out in this column is exactly the sort of thing which will cause the Manitoba economy to lag while other jurisdictions prosper. Every special-interest advocacy group wants their pound of flesh. They all agree in principle with the idea of moving ahead with projects that will grow Manitoba’s economy (and therefore help fund the government agencies and programs they benefit from) but only after their demands are satisfied.

Each special-interest group loudly proclaims that they need special recognition for this reason or that, and the additive effect of all these groups is to chase away investment in Manitoba, and steer it to other provinces (or outside Canada altogether) where business can actually get done.

The op-ed states that “Manitoba is unlike any other province,” and uses this as an argument for the piling-on of yet more layers of review, study, expense, and delay for projects in Manitoba. Sadly, the builders of these revenue-generating projects will perceive the only “uniqueness” of Manitoba as being a bureaucratic mess, and make their investment elsewhere.

Government programs cost money, yet some seem intent to chase away the capital investments which fund those programs.

Steve Teller

Winnipeg

Province should reject Route 90 request

The Manitoba government has an easy way to show it is listening to the coalition of environmental and labour groups urging the province to match its climate promises with real budget action: just say no to the City of Winnipeg’s request for provincial cost-sharing to expand Route 90.

Transportation is Winnipeg’s biggest climate challenge, responsible for nearly half of community-wide emissions. Widening Route 90 offers a climate return so small it’s almost meaningless. The city’s own estimate projects a reduction of only 23,000 tonnes over 25 years. For perspective, that is less than two days of Winnipeg’s annual emissions.

Increasing public debt for a massive road expansion that barely moves the emissions needle is fiscally irresponsible and fundamentally at odds with Manitoba’s Path to Net-Zero strategy released last fall.

Crucially, every provincial dollar sunk into expanding Route 90 is a dollar diverted from other transportation investments that can reduce congestion and emissions more effectively and affordably. This includes safer, more frequent and reliable transit, expanding active transportation options, transportation demand management, and targeted operational upgrades to improve traffic flow.

Kenneth Klassen

Winnipeg

Lawes team should be proud

Kaitlyn Lawes and her team should be very proud of their great performance at the Scotties.

Although they lost in an extra end to the Einarson team, they came within one shot of winning.

Although I have been a fan of the Einarson team for many years, it can arguably be said they were not the best team in this year’s Scotties. They were defeated twice by the Lawes’ team, while Lawes’s only loss all week was the final game.

I felt terrible that the Lawes team was not rewarded for its great performance.

Nevertheless, the Einarson team will be a great representative for Canada. Their experience should serve them well.

Congratulations on the performance of all three teams, including the Peterson team, that made Manitoba proud!

Clare Moster

Selkirk

No thanks to AI

My impetus for writing this letter is to lament the seemingly rampant use of AI in this and that, and whatever area of life. As an aging-out high school teacher, AI seems a formidable force (even now, in the midst of my typing this note, some AI guru suggested I use a simile rather than a metaphor). To be clear, I did mean to say, “AI seems…” and not, “AI is like…”

And I want to say, “Stop it.” That is, I want to say, “I hate it,” but am quickly reminded that the word “hate” is an extreme term and ought to be tempered. No doubt AI would save me to be subservient to a capitalist model of governance.

I hear my colleagues, and others close to me, talk about how they are using AI, and I balk.

I say to them, “Don’t. Don’t use it. Don’t give in. Resist temptation in requisite proportions.”

I have become a Luddite. And a curmudgeon.

Mick Friesen

Gretna

Getting rid of garbage

Re: Ottawa wins Federal Court appeal allowing single-use plastics ban to stand (Jan. 30)

In a world full of turmoil and hatred and chaos finally a glimmer of light shines through. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld Ottawa’s single use plastic ban, a step that will hopefully start to stop the insanity of single use plastics and the havoc they are wreaking on our environment. There isn’t a corner on this Earth that hasn’t been fouled by plastic waste.

Sadly the Conservative Party immediately issued a statement speaking out against the court’s ruling. In their statement they say that banning single use plastics will make life more expensive for Canadians. That is true, but I think I’d rather pay a little more and have an environment I can live in than have extra cash and live in a garbage dump.

Ken McLean

Starbuck