Oct2010 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
4 Letters in response to last month’s Letter to the Editor from Dr Bill De Maria.
From: Sharyn Durley, Dr Kim Wylie, Iain McLean, and The Edmonds Family.
Dear Editor
I was appalled to read in the September edition of the Grapevine the letter from Dr Bill De Maria which began with the words “Is it just me or did other readers of the Dayboro Grapevine find the political endorsement of Peter Dutton by the local GP, two weeks out from the Federal election, highly inappropriate?’. I sincerely hope, Dr De Maria, it is just you.
It is incomprehensible that anyone – far less an academic who is known as an advocate for ‘whistleblowers’ in government – would suggest that our local GP should ‘stay in his surgery and stop trying to influence the outcome of the people’s election’. What rubbish! So far as many people I have spoken to are concerned, our local GP can ‘endorse’ the man in the moon if he wants – we know that the medical care and expertise offered in Dayboro is first class, and delivered by a highly professional, dedicated and hard-working GP. To suggest that we, as patients, might feel that we need to seek an alternative medical practice because ‘an unwanted dimension has now intruded into the doctor-patient relationship’ is laughable.
Furthermore, what isn’t laughable, but almost defamatory, is Dr De Maria’s suggestion that if Peter Dutton retains his seat, ‘will there be an expectation that he has to repay the GP for his kindness?’.
Is it just me, or do other readers not care who ‘respected members of the community’ vote for, endorse, have dinner with or kiss behind the bike shed? Surely every member of our community – regardless of their ‘place’ in it – has a right to express an opinion ? Yes, Dr De Maria, even you….
Sharyn Durley
Dayboro.
I was appalled to read in the September edition of the Grapevine the letter from Dr Bill De Maria which began with the words “Is it just me or did other readers of the Dayboro Grapevine find the political endorsement of Peter Dutton by the local GP, two weeks out from the Federal election, highly inappropriate?’. I sincerely hope, Dr De Maria, it is just you.
It is incomprehensible that anyone – far less an academic who is known as an advocate for ‘whistleblowers’ in government – would suggest that our local GP should ‘stay in his surgery and stop trying to influence the outcome of the people’s election’. What rubbish! So far as many people I have spoken to are concerned, our local GP can ‘endorse’ the man in the moon if he wants – we know that the medical care and expertise offered in Dayboro is first class, and delivered by a highly professional, dedicated and hard-working GP. To suggest that we, as patients, might feel that we need to seek an alternative medical practice because ‘an unwanted dimension has now intruded into the doctor-patient relationship’ is laughable.
Furthermore, what isn’t laughable, but almost defamatory, is Dr De Maria’s suggestion that if Peter Dutton retains his seat, ‘will there be an expectation that he has to repay the GP for his kindness?’.
Is it just me, or do other readers not care who ‘respected members of the community’ vote for, endorse, have dinner with or kiss behind the bike shed? Surely every member of our community – regardless of their ‘place’ in it – has a right to express an opinion ? Yes, Dr De Maria, even you….
Sharyn Durley
Dayboro.
Dear Editor,
I am writing in reply to Dr De Maria’s comments published in the Dayboro Grapevine (Sept. Ed.) in which he questioned the integrity of our local GP for his so-called “highly inappropriate” political statements. I hope that by now, the “troubled” doctor has read the article titled “Dayboro to feel doctor squeeze” published in September in The Westerner as this article provided information related to the rationale behind our GP’s decision to go to print as he did.
A number of statements in Dr De Maria’s letter are disturbing, to say the least. First and foremost, is the issue of an “unwanted dimension” (politics) intruding upon “the doctor-patient relationship”. I doubt any person in Dayboro attending our GP, podiatrist, dentist or psychologist when in need of help is the least bit interested in their political ideology. Such a statement staggers belief and perhaps reflects the writer’s narrow-mindedness as opposed to the open-mindedness of the Dayboro community.
Further, our GP would not have a clue or be the least interested in what political party his patients supported. He is too busy, alone caring for the community; ‘drowning’ in a sea of bureaucratic paperwork, and struggling to ensure the ongoing viability of his practice in a rapidly growing community urgently requiring another GP. This situation is now critical with the proposed introduction of GP Super Clinics which will make it nigh on impossible to attract other GPs to his practice. It is not out of the question that such a situation may lead to Dayboro being without any GP. I respect our GP’s courage at speaking out because in essence, his motivation was to keep medical services viable in Dayboro.
Our GP has worked for over two decades with a growing workload most other GPs would not tolerate. During much of this period he has received considerable support from the local Federal MP Peter Dutton in trying to find another GP to support the practice. I too received invaluable assistance from Peter Dutton re a sensitive employment issue though I do not support a number of his party’s political policies. During his support, my political persuasion was never an issue. He helped me because as a MP should, he helped all members of his constituency.
If in the future, a newly elected member “overlooked” Dayboro because our GP voiced an opinion, he/she would be contravening their political, legal and moral obligations and I think such a suggestion is simply scaremongering.
I find it offensive you infer that the statements of one respected member of the community (who regardless of his “position” has the same basic right as every other member of the community and county to voice an opinion) would influence the voting preferences of the residents of Dayboro. Highly respected members of the Australian community often make personal belief statements – statements for example about their lack of religiousity, gender preference and propensity to tell ‘fibs’. The residents of Dayboro have the intelligence to make up their own minds on all such matters, particularly which political party they support.
It is sad that you did not take the time to meet with our local GP and discuss your concerns before putting pen to paper.
Dr Kim Wylie PhD, Dayboro
I am writing in reply to Dr De Maria’s comments published in the Dayboro Grapevine (Sept. Ed.) in which he questioned the integrity of our local GP for his so-called “highly inappropriate” political statements. I hope that by now, the “troubled” doctor has read the article titled “Dayboro to feel doctor squeeze” published in September in The Westerner as this article provided information related to the rationale behind our GP’s decision to go to print as he did.
A number of statements in Dr De Maria’s letter are disturbing, to say the least. First and foremost, is the issue of an “unwanted dimension” (politics) intruding upon “the doctor-patient relationship”. I doubt any person in Dayboro attending our GP, podiatrist, dentist or psychologist when in need of help is the least bit interested in their political ideology. Such a statement staggers belief and perhaps reflects the writer’s narrow-mindedness as opposed to the open-mindedness of the Dayboro community.
Further, our GP would not have a clue or be the least interested in what political party his patients supported. He is too busy, alone caring for the community; ‘drowning’ in a sea of bureaucratic paperwork, and struggling to ensure the ongoing viability of his practice in a rapidly growing community urgently requiring another GP. This situation is now critical with the proposed introduction of GP Super Clinics which will make it nigh on impossible to attract other GPs to his practice. It is not out of the question that such a situation may lead to Dayboro being without any GP. I respect our GP’s courage at speaking out because in essence, his motivation was to keep medical services viable in Dayboro.
Our GP has worked for over two decades with a growing workload most other GPs would not tolerate. During much of this period he has received considerable support from the local Federal MP Peter Dutton in trying to find another GP to support the practice. I too received invaluable assistance from Peter Dutton re a sensitive employment issue though I do not support a number of his party’s political policies. During his support, my political persuasion was never an issue. He helped me because as a MP should, he helped all members of his constituency.
If in the future, a newly elected member “overlooked” Dayboro because our GP voiced an opinion, he/she would be contravening their political, legal and moral obligations and I think such a suggestion is simply scaremongering.
I find it offensive you infer that the statements of one respected member of the community (who regardless of his “position” has the same basic right as every other member of the community and county to voice an opinion) would influence the voting preferences of the residents of Dayboro. Highly respected members of the Australian community often make personal belief statements – statements for example about their lack of religiousity, gender preference and propensity to tell ‘fibs’. The residents of Dayboro have the intelligence to make up their own minds on all such matters, particularly which political party they support.
It is sad that you did not take the time to meet with our local GP and discuss your concerns before putting pen to paper.
Dr Kim Wylie PhD, Dayboro
Dear Editor,
With respect to the September Edition, and the letter from Dr Bill de Maria, I would like to furnish this response.
As Dr Bill admitted he did not vote for any major party, he has simply proven that he has no idea about policies and their impact on Society, or, more importantly in Dayboro, the impact on COMMUNITY.
The local GP and his ability to deliver optimum service to the community has been decimated by the Super GP clinics and the FEDERAL Governments attempts to remove Health portfolios from STATE jurisdiction.Dr Bill seems to have completely overlooked these policies, suggesting Health is still the domain of the State. As the local candidate was and still is the Shadow Health Minister, I see no problem with a doctor endorsing the possible future Health Minister to assist in policy decisions affecting us all. The advertisement was quite clear in advising that the endorsement was based on community healthcare. I felt that the GP utilised, rather than abused his position to assist people in making an informed decision in ONE policy field.
What is most offensive, is the suggestion that there must be some form of ‘kick-backs’ or unlawful preferential treatment between the two parties. People who are turned away from proper medical treatment simply because they know of the good Doctor’s political persuasion are probably not deserving of his expertise.
This time around, the whole country was divided. I have many friends and patients who are as vehemently on the other side, as I am on my side of politics. It becomes a very sad and sterile world if we cannot express our opinions. It is even worse if we fail to allow others to express theirs.
Lastly, to Dr Bill, as an ‘alternative’ voter. The Green Party had numerous vile policies which they deliberately failed to inform the community of. The Independants went the way of their own careers and pockets rather than representing the wishes of their constituents. Then, the Green Party became Labor anyway, (like we didn’t know that before!). I would like to encourage people who go for ‘protest’ votes, to actually THINK about their decision. There is no value to the country in ‘sitting on the fence’.
Sincerely,
Iain McLean.
With respect to the September Edition, and the letter from Dr Bill de Maria, I would like to furnish this response.
As Dr Bill admitted he did not vote for any major party, he has simply proven that he has no idea about policies and their impact on Society, or, more importantly in Dayboro, the impact on COMMUNITY.
The local GP and his ability to deliver optimum service to the community has been decimated by the Super GP clinics and the FEDERAL Governments attempts to remove Health portfolios from STATE jurisdiction.Dr Bill seems to have completely overlooked these policies, suggesting Health is still the domain of the State. As the local candidate was and still is the Shadow Health Minister, I see no problem with a doctor endorsing the possible future Health Minister to assist in policy decisions affecting us all. The advertisement was quite clear in advising that the endorsement was based on community healthcare. I felt that the GP utilised, rather than abused his position to assist people in making an informed decision in ONE policy field.
What is most offensive, is the suggestion that there must be some form of ‘kick-backs’ or unlawful preferential treatment between the two parties. People who are turned away from proper medical treatment simply because they know of the good Doctor’s political persuasion are probably not deserving of his expertise.
This time around, the whole country was divided. I have many friends and patients who are as vehemently on the other side, as I am on my side of politics. It becomes a very sad and sterile world if we cannot express our opinions. It is even worse if we fail to allow others to express theirs.
Lastly, to Dr Bill, as an ‘alternative’ voter. The Green Party had numerous vile policies which they deliberately failed to inform the community of. The Independants went the way of their own careers and pockets rather than representing the wishes of their constituents. Then, the Green Party became Labor anyway, (like we didn’t know that before!). I would like to encourage people who go for ‘protest’ votes, to actually THINK about their decision. There is no value to the country in ‘sitting on the fence’.
Sincerely,
Iain McLean.
Dear Editor,
Yes, Bill De Maria, it is just you that finds our local GP expressing his freedom of speech inappropriate (September edition).
As for your diatribe of points such as; people with divergent political views being “forced to seek alternate medical services”; since when does any doctor say “What’s your problem – but tell me your political affiliation first!” Get real! This smacks of someone confused with Bolshevik Russia and not our egalitarian society.
As for the “effect on community solidarity” your GREEN politicized opinions have had the effect of solidifying community support for our G.P.
The only point of yours we don’t repudiate is that our G.P ‘stay in his surgery’ because without him, our community would have no medical help – as it appears that it is a rarity these days for a doctor to dedicate himself to a rural community.
So, long may our very good doctor ‘stay in his surgery’ and give another 25 years of faithful service. We owe him a great debt and the health of our community depends on him.
"The Edmonds Family"
Yes, Bill De Maria, it is just you that finds our local GP expressing his freedom of speech inappropriate (September edition).
As for your diatribe of points such as; people with divergent political views being “forced to seek alternate medical services”; since when does any doctor say “What’s your problem – but tell me your political affiliation first!” Get real! This smacks of someone confused with Bolshevik Russia and not our egalitarian society.
As for the “effect on community solidarity” your GREEN politicized opinions have had the effect of solidifying community support for our G.P.
The only point of yours we don’t repudiate is that our G.P ‘stay in his surgery’ because without him, our community would have no medical help – as it appears that it is a rarity these days for a doctor to dedicate himself to a rural community.
So, long may our very good doctor ‘stay in his surgery’ and give another 25 years of faithful service. We owe him a great debt and the health of our community depends on him.
"The Edmonds Family"
